BX  8388  .P4  1887 
Perrine,  William  Henry, 

1827-1881. 
Principles  of  church 

anve rnmenf 


1.^ 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2014 


https://archive.org/details/principlesofchurOOperr_0 


PRINCIPLES 

OF 

CHURCH  GOVERNMENT 

WITH  SPECIAL  APPLICATION 

^  TO  THE 

POLITY  OF  EPISCOPAL  METHODISM, 

AND 

A  PLAN  FOR  THE  REORGANIZATION  OF  THE  GENERAL 
CONFERENCE  INTO  TWO  DISTINCT  SEPARATE, 
AND  CONCURRENT  HOUSES. 

BY  THE  LATE 

WILLIAM  U}  PERRINE,  D.D. 

ARRANGED  AND  EDITED, 

WITH  A  LIFE  STORY  AND  A  REVIEW  OF  THE  LAY  DELE- 
GATION MOVEMENT  IN  THE  METHODIST 
EPISCOPAL  CHURCH, 

By  JAMES  H.  POTXS,  D.D. 


A'EIV  YORK:  PHILLIPS  HUNT. 
CINCINNA  TI:  CRANSTON  &>  STOIVE. 
1887. 


Copyright,  1887,  by 
PHILLIPS  &  HUNT, 
New  York. 


Mt  sole  aim  is  to  excite  those  wlio  have  the  welfare  of  the  Church 
at  heart  to  unite  their  eudeavors  iu  opposing  the  fatal  tendencies  of 
centralization  of  power  in  the  General  Conference. 

If  that  evil  day  is  delayed  it  will  be  because  we  shall  clearly  descry 
that  distribution  of  power  essential  to  liberty  built  up  over  against  the 
ramparts  of  a  mighty  executive,  and  so  perfect  a  judicatory  as  to 
hold  both  the  legislative  and  the  executive  to  the  strictest  construc- 
tion of  their  respective  responsibilities.  Truth  will  ever  be  unpalata- 
ble only  to  those  who  are  determined  not  to  relinquish  error,  but  can 
never  give  offense  to  honest  minds. — Da.  Pekrixe. 


PREFACE. 


Dr.  Perrine  was  fond  of  quoting  from  Milton  the  line, 

"  Heaven's  high  behest  no  preface  need?," 

and  so  far  as  the  subject-matter  and  purpose  of  his 
writings  are  concerned  the  same  is  true.  But  our  rela- 
tion to  these  writings  requires  a  word  of  explanation. 

With  Dr.  Perrine,  as  with  many  other  great  men,  the 
ruling  j)assion  was  strong  in  death.  One  of  his  last 
requests  was  that  his  papers  on  lay  representation  and 
kindred  themes  might  be  gathered  up  and  published  to 
the  world.  Mrs.  Perrine  intended  to  fulfill  this  sacred 
injunction.  She  was  familiar  with  her  husband's  writ- 
ings, and  in  hearty  sympathy  with  all  his  literary 
efforts;  but  long  absei*e  in  the  West,  and  attendance 
upon  other  duties,  interfered  with  her  cherished  plans. 
Slie  tlien  requested  the  undersigned  to  undertake  the 
work  of  editing  these  papers  for  the  press. 

Only  the  most  profound  reverence  for  tlie  memory  of 
Dr.  Perrine,  and  the  nio^t  absohUe  conviction  that  he 
vv^as  sound  in  the  majority  of  his  views,  induced  us,  in  the 
midst  of  our  multifarious  duties,  to  undertake  the  task. 

Some  difficulty  has  attended  the  labor.  From  the 
very  necessity  of  the  case  Dr.  Perrine  was  a  controver- 
sialist. He  contended  for  the  supremacy  of  a  strongly 
ilisputed  principle.  He  antagonized  the  positions  of 
some  of  the  best  writers  and  speakers  in  the  Church. 
He  sounded  their  views  to  the  bottom.  His  treatment 
of  a  question  was  never  superticial,  but  always  deep  and 
thorougli.  He  went  back  to  first  principles,  and  iuv.i- 
riably  submitted  the  reasons  for  the  faith  that  was  in 


6 


Preface. 


Lira,  He  shrank  from  contact  with  no  opponent,  how- 
ever great  or  good  or  popular.  Always  respectful,  and 
frequently  complimentary,  he  nevertheless  treated  his 
opponents'  ideas  strictly  on  their  merits,  and,  when  oc- 
casion required,  hesitated  not  to  crush  down  those  ideas 
with  invincible  logic,  and  exhibit  their  worthlessness  by 
the  most  scathing  rhetoric.  Instances  of  this  character- 
istic will  be  found  in  the  body  of  this  book,  although, 
for  obvious  reasons,  many  of  the  controversial  features 
and  personal  allusions  have  been  omitted. 

'i'liere  was  a  consistency  of  word  and  act  in  Dr.  Per- 
rine's  entire  public  career  wliich  few  appreciate,but  which 
this  volume  will,  we  trust,  in  some  measure  indicate. 

The  plan  of  the  book  is  apparent.  The  first  three 
chapters  are  by  the  editor ;  all  remaining  cha[)ters, 
foot-notes,  incidental  editing  and  arrangement  excepted, 
are  by  Dr.  Perrine. 

Believing  that  the  principles  of  our  author  are  in  the 
main  correct,  and  that  if  practically  approved  by  the 
Church  they  will  prevent  much"lin\vise  legislation,  save 
us  from  many  embarrassments,  and  enshrine  the  name 
of  our  lamented  dead  in  the  hearts  and  hopes  of  on- 
coming generations,  we  most  respectfully  submit  this 
volume  to  the  attention  of  thinking  people. 

James  II.  Potts. 

After  a  careful  examination  of  the  manuscript  of  this 
l)Oi)k  I  desire  to  express  my  high  appreciation  of  the  work 
of  its  editor,  who  has  successfully  overcome  the  difficul- 
ties of  its  compilation.  I  would  present  to  him  my  most 
grateful  acknowledgments  for  the  painstaking  care  and 
the  marked  ability  he  has  brought  to  the  work.  To  the 
Great  Disposer  of  events  I  would  render  thanksgiving  for 
the  jn-ovidence  which  has  thus  opened  the  way  for  the 
presentation  to  the  Church  of  principles  which  seem  to  me 
vital  to  its  highest  interests.     Livonia  B.  Perrine. 


CONTENTS. 


Chapter  Page 
I.  The  Life  Story   9 

II.  The  Lay  Dklegation  Movement   35 

III.  The  Doctrine  of  the  Priesthood  of  the  People   84 

IV.  The  Special  Divi.ve  Call  to  the  Ministry   98 

V.  The  Special  Commission  to  Govern   106 

VL  The  Twelve  Apostles  Especially  Commissioned   122 

VII.  The  Special  Commission  Conveyed  to  the  Ordained 

Preaching  Elders   129 

VITI.  The  "  Wesleyan  Axiom."   139 

IX.  The  Things  Forbidden  to  the  Governors  of  the 

Church   149 

X.  The  Optional  in  Church  Government   162 

XI.  Governmental  Maxims   177 

XII.  The  Constitution  to  be  Guarded   193 

XIIL  Injudicious  Legislation  .to  be  Avoided   223 

XIV.  The  Important  Interests  to  be  Protected   232 

XV.  The  Division  of  Labor  Principle   241 

XVI.  Harmony  and  Unity  to  be  Restored   245 


8  Contents. 

Chapter  Page 
XVII.  The  New  Testament  Church  to  be  Exemplified  258 

^Vin.  General  Conference  Re-organization — Comparative 

Tables   271 

XIX.  Kemarks  on  the  Foregoing  Tables   288 

XX.  Objections  to  the  Two-House  Principle   299 

XXI.  Plan  for  Two  Houses   304 

XXII.  Two  Houses— Dates  of  Origin   313 


PRINCIPLES 

OF 

CHURCH  GOVERNMENT. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE  LIFK  STORY. 

"  Some  men  are  born  great,  some  acliieve  greatuess,  and  some  have 
greatness  thrust  upon  "era.'' 

Rev.  William  H.  Perrine,  D.D.,  belonged  to  that 
class  which  achieves  greatness.  Under  God  he  mapped 
out  his  own  successful  career,  and  with  undaunted 
heart  steadfastly  pursued  his  purpose  until  summoned 
to  a  higher  world.  Yet  he  was  well  born.  He  traced 
his  lineage  back  to  the  Huguenots  of  France  who,  at 
the  revocation  of  the  edict  of  Nantes,  braved  the  perils 
of  the  deep  to  find  an  asylum  in  America,  where  free- 
dom from  persecution  and  true  liberty  could  be  en- 
joyed. His  ancestor,  Pierre  Perrine,  emigrated  Avith 
two  sons,  Henry  and  Daniel,  in  1685,  embarking  with 
other  refugees  at  Rochelle,  France,  in  the  ship  Cal- 
edonia,  which  was  wrecked  and  beached  upon  the 
south-east  corner  of  Staten  Island.  While  yet  upon 
shipboard  the  refugees  entered  into  a  solemn  covenant 
that  they  and  their  children  to  the  latest  generation 


10        Principles  op  Chuech  Government. 


should  be  the  Lord's.  Two  young  brothers,  mere  chil- 
dren, were  brought  ashore  in  one  garment.  From  these 
brothers  were  descended  a  long  line  of  distinguished 
Presbyterians.  William  Henry  was  of  the  seventh  gen- 
eration. The  family  had  centered  about  Monmouth, 
N.  J.,  and  had  numerous  representatives  in  the  minis- 
try, and  in  honored  positions  in  collegiate  and  civil  life. 
During  the  revolutionary  struggle  these  all  identified 
themselves  firmly  and  conspicuously  with  the  cause  of 
liberty,  and  one  of  the  decisive  battles  of  the  Revolution 
was  fought  on  the  premises  of  his  grandfather,  John 
Perrine,  of  Monmouth.  In  1798  his  family  removed  to 
Lyons,  N.  Y.,  where  William  Henry  was  born,  October 
8,  1827.  In  1833  the  family  migrated  to  Michigan, 
settling  in  Sandstone,  Jackson  County.  His  parents 
were  Presbyterians.  When  William  was  once  asked 
how  it  transpired  that  he  was  a  Methodist  when  he  had 
such  an  heroic  Calvinistic  ancestry,  he  replied,  "Be- 
cause, doubtless,  it  was  so  "ordained." 

The  family  was  large,  he  having  eight  brothers  and 
four  sisters.  It  was  also  poor,  and  its  members  endured 
all  the  hardships  of  pioneer  life.  William  early  mani- 
fested the  intellectual  bent  which  afterward  gave  him 
such  distinction.  His  career  of  self-application,  self- 
help,  and  self-mastery  began  in  childhood.  At  eleven 
he  was  a  close  student,  though  compelled  to  prosecute 
his  studies  nnder  great  disadvantages.  He  is  said  to 
have  borro\ve<l  many  books  and  read  them  eagerly  by 
firelight,  so  determined  was  he  to  store  his  mind  with 
knowledge.  At  the  age  of  nineteen  he  matriculated  at 
Hillsdale  College,  and  graduated  from  that  institution 


The  Life  Story, 


11 


in  1853.  He  once  told  us  something  of  how  he  fared 
while  prosecuting  his  studies  at  college.  Often  his 
only  repast  was  "  cold  biscuit  and  cheese,"  but  his 
mind  was  feasting  on  higher  food.  The  indomitable 
powers  of  his  great  soul  enabled  him  to  sui'mount  all 
obstacles,  endure  all  privations,  and  win  an  educational 
victory  at  any  cost.  By  teaching  school,  and  other  em- 
ployments, he  earned  sufficient  money  to  pay  absolutely 
necessary  expenses.  Yet  he  kept  pace  in  his  studies 
with  his  more  favored  school-mates,  and  graduated  in 
regular  order  with  his  class. 

His  religious  training,  of  course,  had  been  carefully 
attended  to.  From  a  child  he  had  known  the  Holy 
Scriptures  and  had  learned  to  fear  God.  At  the  age  of 
thirteen  he  was  deeply  convicted  of  his  sinful  state  and 
earnestly  sought  pardon.  His  conversion  was  clear  and 
thorough.  He  at  once  united  with  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church.  Then  came  a  struggle.  He  immediately 
felt  that  God  had  called  him  to  the  Avork  of  the  minis- 
try, but  his  strong  proclivity  for  artistic  pursuits  seemed 
to  lead  in  another  direction.  Conscience  triumphed. 
In  1851,  while  yet  a  college  student,  he  was  licensed  to 
preach,  joined  the  Michigan  Annual  Conference,  and 
■was  stationed  at  South  Albion.  In  1852  he  was  ap- 
pointed to  Parma,  but  preached  in  Jackson  while  the 
regular  pastor,  Rev.  S.  Clements,  was  engaged  in  col- 
lecting funds  to  pay  a  debt  upon  the  church.  About 
this  time  he  became  impressed  that  he  should  go  as  a 
missionary  to  Africa,  and  asked  his  brethren  to  hold 
him  for  that  field  ;  but  the  way  appeared  not  to  open, 
and  he  finally  relinquished  the  thought.    During  all  his 


12        Principles  op  Church  Government, 


young  manhood  he  was  the  subject  of  strong  impres- 
sions and  impulses,  which  his  friends  could  dis- 
lodge only  with  much  difficulty,  and  he  always  re- 
tained a  sense  of  divine  sanction  upon  all  his  labors 
and  plans. 

His  early  ministry  was  in  demonstration  of  the  Spirit 
and  with  power.  He  prepared  his  sermons  with  much 
care,  studied  deeply  the  meaning  of  every  word, 
searched  earnestly  for  the  most  vigorous  and  stiiking 
thought,  and  made  all  his  pulpit  efforts  glow  with  the 
enthusiasm  of  his  own  soul. 

His  round  of  appointments  stood  as  follows:  1854-55, 
Lafayette  Street,  Detroit;  1856-57,  Adrian;  1858,  trip 
to  Palestine  and  Jerusalem;  1859,  Ann  Arbor;  1860-61, 
superannuated;  1862-63,  Flint;  1864-67,  Professor  of 
Natural  Science  and  Painting  in  Albion  College  ;  1868, 
trip  to  Europe;  1868-69,  Central  Church,  Lansing; 
1870,  presiding  elder  of  Lansing  District;  1871-73, 
Professor  of  History  and  Belles-lettres  in  Albion  Col- 
lege; 1874,  St.  Joseph;  1875-77,  Albion;  1878,  Ma- 
rengo; 1879,  Parma;  1880,  Concord. 

At  Adrian,  Detroit,  Ann  Arbor,  Flint,  and  Lansing 
he  labored  especially  hard,  and  witnessed  abundant 
spiritual  fruit.  During  these  years  he  advanced  rapidly 
in  pulpit  power  and  in  the  graces  of  the  divine  life.  In 
October,  1854,  he  married  Miss  Livonia  E.  Benedict,  a 
lady  of  rare  culture,  worth,  and  refinement,  who  proved 
a  devoted  and  accomplished  wife,  a  helpful  companion 
in  study,  and  a  warm  sympathizer  with  him  in  all  his 
subsequent  labors  and  aims.  During  several  years  she 
filled  the  chair  of  languages  and  mathematics,  and 


The  Life  Story. 


13 


acted  as  preceptress  in  Albion  College  with  marked 
ability. 

Five  children  blessed  this  niarriage  union,  all  daugh- 
ters. One,  Mary  Blanche,  died  at  the  age  of  two  years. 
The  eldest,  Lura  L.,  who  graduated  from  the  classical 
course  of  Albion  College  in  1880,  resides  with  her 
mother  at  Medbery,  Dakota,  and  is  teaching  near  their 
Iiome.  The  second,  Clara  B.,  a  lady  of  rare  intellectual 
gifts,  wns  an  invalid  for  several  years  from  overstudy, 
but  was  slowly  i-egaining  health  when  her  father  died. 
Very  soon  after  she  became  insane  and  was  taken  to 
the  asylum  at  Kalamazoo,  where  she  still  remains.  The 
third,  Florence  M.,  is  a  bright  young  lady,  and  a  grad- 
uate from  the  classical  course  of  Albion  College,  class 
of  1887.  The  youngest,  Edith  L.,  a  sweet  girl  of  per- 
liaps  nineteen  years,  is  with  her  mother,  and  pursuing 
her  studies  under  the  direction  of  her  accomplished  sis- 
ter Lura. 

Nothing  can  exceed  in  loveliness  the  home  life  of  Dr. 
Perrine.  In  all  his  private  and  domestic  relations  he 
was  most  true  and  tender,  affectionate  and  generous. 
He  never  was  untrue  to  a  friend,  and  never  forgot  a 
kindness  shown  to  him.  His  life  was  pure,  his  conduct 
blameless.  LTnselfish,  great-hearted,  he  took  his  friends 
into  his  sympathies  and  love,  and  there  was  an  inner 
circle  of  fellowship  which  in  fidelity  and  warmth  cannot 
be  excelled  on  this  earth. 

Some  good  men  called  him  "  erratic."  Possibly  in 
some  things  he  was.    As  Rev.  Dr.  D.  F.  Barnes  says: 

"  I  have  been  his  pastor,  and  for  years  lived  his  neigh- 
bor.   I  have  traveled  with  him.    We  have  been  room- 


14 


PuixciPLES  OF  Chuhch  Govkuxment, 


mates  and  bed-fellows  for  six  weeks.  I  have  never 
found  any  one  more  unselfish,  and  of  a  more  generous 
nature.  He  was  a  man  of  excellent  thought  and  great 
research,  of  strong  faith  and  most  noble  and  generous 
impulses.  He  was  an  indefatigable  worker.  Indeed, 
in  ray  judgment,  his  greatest  fault  was  in  trying  to  do 
too  much.  I  have  freely  conversed  with  him  on  those 
points  which  seemed  to  me  points  of  failure.  Had  he 
undertaken  less,  had  he  concentrated  more,  he  would 
have  excelled  as  a  successful  teacher,  or  as  the  great 
and  eloquent  winner  of  souls.  He  undertook  so  many 
things  that  the  gi'eat  soul  was  burdened.  This  a  soul 
less  noble,  perhaps,  could  not  have  done.  Once  as  we 
roomed  together,  at  a  district  meeting,  speaking  of 
places  for  the  next  General  Conference,  I  suggested 
that  we  might  not  live  to  see  that  time.  He  replied, 
'  I  shall  if  God  has  use  for  me.  Of  that  I  give  myself 
no  concern.' " 

Dr.  Perrine  was  very  appreciative  of  any  thing  said 
or  done  in  his  behalf.  The  heartiest  thanks  we  ever 
received  from  any  man  came  from  him  after  we 
had  written  a  word  of  commendation  of  his  plans 
for  the  church.  Never  shall  we  forget  the  earnest, 
firmly-spoken  "  God  bless  you "  which  came  from  his 
li|)S  as  he  grasped  our  hand  and  drew  us  closely  to 
himself. 

It  was  so  in  all  his  work.  When  in  the  pastorate  he 
acted  upon  the  principle  that  those  who  did  the  most, 
sacrificed  the  most,  were  most  faithful  under  all  circum- 
stances, deserved  the  largest  benefits  and  blessings. 
Once  he  said  to  a  friend,  "  When  I  have  a  stormy  Sun- 


The  Life  Story. 


15 


day,  and  but  few  at  church,  I  give  them  the  best  I  have. 
I  say  to  myself:  If  this  people  will  leave  their  homos 
and  come  out  to  hear  me  preach  sucli  a  day  as  this  they 
shall  have  something  worth  while,  if  I  have  got  rt;  and 
I  always  ask  God  to  help  me  do  my  best. 

"While  laboring  always  to  do  his  duty,  his  work  was 
never  cold  or  perfunctory  in  execution,  but  always  in- 
spired by  warm  love  for  his  race.  He  possessed  in  large 
measure  that  'enthusiasm  for  humanity'  which  tlie 
author  of  Ecce  Homo  points  out  as  the  distinguisliing 
characteristic  of  the  Master  whom  Dr.  Perrine  delighted 
to  follow.  He  desired  all  good  and  noble  things  for 
his  race,  and  was  willing  to  spend  time,  labor,  all  he 
had,  in  its  service;  we  have  no  doubt  whatever  that 
this  self-devotion  would  have  reached  the  point  of  mar- 
tyrdom had  such  demand  existed  in  our  time." 

In  doctrinal  belief  Dr.  Perrine  was  thoroughly  ortho- 
dox. He  felt  tbat  there  are  some  truths  which  must  be 
believed.  In  respect  to  them  faith  is  not  optional. 
They  are  fundamental,  vital,  and  essential  to  salvation. 
He  was  perfectly  familiar,  too,  with  these  fundamentals. 
He  well  knew  when  they  were  encroached  upon.  He 
could  scent  heresy  as  keenly  and  scourge  it  as  merci- 
lessly as  any  man  then  living.  He  could  not  tolerate 
what  are  termed  progressive  views  in  regard  to  inspira- 
tion, the  atonement,  prayer,  the  resurrection,  etc.  With 
Longfellow  he  believed  that — 

"  The  sin  of  heresy  is  a  deadly  sin, 
'Tis  like  the  falling  of  the  snow,  whose  crystals 
The  traveler  plays  with,  thoughtless  of  his  danger, 
Until  he  sees  the  air  so  full  of  light 


16        Principles  of  Chuech  Goveknment. 


That  it  is  dark;  and  blindly  staggering  onward, 
Lost,  and  bewildered,  he  sits  down  to  rest; 
There  falls  a  pleasant  drowsiness  upon  him, 
And  what  he  thinks  is  sleep,  alas  I  is  death." 

In  his  preaching  Dr.  Perrine  gave  due  prominence  to 
the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  and  seemed  to 
preach  w  ith  eternity  in  view.  He  constantly  inculcated 
the  necessity  and  privilege  of  a  complete  consecration, 
and  urged  upon  believers  the  acceptance  of  all  the  ten 
thousand  blessings  which  God  has  in  store  for  them. 
He  was  magnified  constantly  by  his  conception  of  the 
exalted  sphere  and  privilege  of  a  minister  of  Christ,  and 
never  lowered  the  true  dignity  of  the  sacred  office  by 
word  or  deed. 

Dr.  Perrine  was  one  of  the  most  unsuspecting  and 
confiding  of  men.  He  seemed  utterly  unconscious  that 
any  interest  of  another  could  come  in  competition  with 
his  own.  To  him  all  virtuous  society  was  an  Eden  of 
innocence,  and  his  own  deportment  and  conversation 
ever  tended  to  keep  it  pure  and  charitable.  He  was 
the  friend  of  youth,  taking  especial  interest  in  young 
ministers,  and  never  failing  to  impress  them  with  his 
own  moral  excellence  and  kindness  of  heart.  Rev.  M. 
W.  Darling,  of  the  Congregational  Church,  who  long 
knew  him  as  a  student  and  as  associate  in  the  faculty 
of  Albion  College,  pays  him  the  following  tribute: 
"To  me,  as  to  all  who  knew  him  intimately,  his  death 
comes  like  that  of  an  own  brother.  How  I  remember 
his  tenderness  in  dealing  with  the  erring;  his  forgiving 
spirit;  his  sympathetic  heart  for  all!  In  the  higher 
qualities  of  Christian  character  he  was  full.  Whatever 


The  Life  Story. 


17 


his  faults,  they  were  not  faults  in  respect  to  obedieiice 
to  God  and  charity  to  men.  In  these  he  was  truly  a 
Christ-like  man.  In  some  difficult  cases  of  discipline 
in  the  college  I  well  remember  his  remark,  and  have 
ever  since  tried  to  profit  by  it :  *  There  are  two  ways 
of  managing  human  nature — one  is  to  drive;  the  other 
is  to  lead.  My  way  is  to  lead.'  Then  started  the  sym- 
pathetic tear.  In  the  highest  qualities  of  Christ-like 
character  he  was  peer  among  the  noblest  of  mankind." 

Dr.  Perrine  was  a  lover  of  the  beautiful,  both  in 
nature  and  art.  His  aesthetic  tastes  and  strong  natural 
devotion  to  artistic  pursuits,  together  with  his  thorough 
collegiate  training,  eminently  qualified  him  for  his  work 
as  a  professor  in  Albion  College.  The  fact  that  he  filled 
acceptably  at  different  times  in  that  institution  the 
chairs  of  natural  science,  history,  belles-lettres,  and  art, 
proves  the  versatility  of  his  talent  and  the  ripeness  of 
his  culture.  During  his  first  professorship  in  that  insti- 
tution he  really  did  double  work,  because  otherwise  work 
which  seemed  to  him  very  important  would  have  been 
left  undone,  the  college  being  without  endowment  and 
in  debt.  To  the  chair  of  natural  science  he  voluntarily 
added  the  department  of  painting.  lie  also  taught  elo- 
cution, and  devoted  much  time  to  tlie  individual  instruc- 
tion and  training  of  students  in  what  seemed  to  him 
the  best  methods  of  oratorical  composition. 

His  visit  to  the  Holy  Land  gave  a  strong  and  event- 
ful bias  to  his  studies  and  life-work.  The  late  Rev.  Dr. 
J.  M.  Arnold,  describing  it,  said:  "His  ardent  soul 
drank  in  the  artistic  and  aesthetic  treasures  of  Europe, 
and  the  natural  beauties  and  glories  of  the  land  whose 
2 


18        PiaxcirLEs  of  Church  Government. 


imagery  glows  upon  the  sacred  page,  which  poured  it- 
self forth  in  entrancing  description  upon  his  return. 
He  spent  two  years  in  lecturing,  with  a  view  of  securing 
the  means  to  return  to  Europe  and  complete  his  arrange- 
ments for  a  magnificent  '  Landscape  View  of  Palestine,' 
the  conception  of  which  had  already  crystallized  in 
his  own  soul  and  was  rapidly  assuming  form  and 
shape." 

His  earliest  achievement  in  this  direction  was  a  pan- 
orama covering  several  thousand  feet  of  canvas,  painted 
by  Mr.  Wheeler,  a  Micliigan  artist,  from  sketches  made 
by  Mr.  Perrine  and  from  photographs  obtained  by 
hira.  After  a  shipwreck,  while  crossing  Lake  Michigan 
in  1861,  very  many  of  the  views  were  reijainted  by  Mr. 
Perrine.  Upon  this  panorama,  glowing  with  reality, 
Dr.  Perrine  gave  such  lectures  as  only  he  could  give. 
There  have  been  more  highly  endowed  orators  and 
more  pleasing  speakers,  but  Dr.  Perrine's  lectures 
upon  the  Holy  Land  were  pervaded  by  a  minuteness 
of  detail,  a  thorough  grasp  of  the  whole  subject  in 
all  its  bearings,  and  a  religions  awe  and  sublimity 
which,  so  far  as  our  information  extends,  has  never  been 
excelled. 

"  But  he  justly  regarded  his  '  General  Landscape  View 
of  Palestine'  as  the  greatest  achievement  of  his  life, 
apart  from  his  personal  agency  in  leading  men  to  Christ. 
Upon  that  he  spent  nine  years  of  labor  and  about  six 
thousand  dollars.  He  personally  took  sketches  of  the 
entire  country.  These  he  combined  with  remarkable 
and  unequaled  symmetry  in  a  landscape  view,  which 
he  reduced  by  about  thh'ty  distinct  repaintings  to  its 


The  Life  Story. 


19 


final  cast.  In  18G8  he  went  to  Europe,  and  arranged 
in  Berlin  for  the  publication  of  this  chromo  by  Storch 
and  Kramer.  As  a  work  of  art  it  is  unquestionably 
meritorious.  The  highest  indorsement  of  its  correct- 
ness and  penetrating  force  of  representation  have  been 
given  by  such  men  as  Kenan,  Dore,  Dean  Stanley,  Drs. 
Strong,  Gage,  Duffield,  and  McClintock,  with  a  multi- 
tude of  others.  But  financially  it  was  a  failure,  and 
involved  him  in  a  life-long  struggle  with  debt  and  anxi- 
ety. If  he  could  conscientiously  have  given  his  time 
to  its  introduction,  there  is  little  doubt  that  it  would 
have  proved  lucrative;  but  he  could  not  be  induced  to 
leave  the  ministry.  It  is  said  to  have  about  cleared  its 
cost,  and  there  is  still  a  fortune  in  it  if  properly  han- 
dled." 

When  this  striking  and  beautiful  picture  was  being 
introduced,  we  remember  to  have  seen  enthusiastic  de- 
scriptions of  it  in  the  religious  press.  Those  who  had 
culture  to  appreciate  it  praised  it  most  highly.  "  Would 
you  like  to  see  how  the  land  looks  in  which  Jesus 
liveil?"  inquired  one  addressing  Sunday-school  read- 
ers. "Would  you  not  enjoy  a  sail  along  its  shores 
from  Joppa  to  Sidon  ?  I  think  most  of  you  would. 
But,  then,  j-ou  cannot  do  that  for  lack  of  that  im- 
portant thing  called  an  'opportunity.'  Yet  there 
is  a  way  in  which  you  can  get  a  view  of  that  Holy 
Land  just  as  it  looks  to  those  who  do  take  such  a  sail. 
It  is  by  getting  your  teachers  to  hang  up  Profes- 
sor Perrine's  'General  Landscape  View  of  Palestine' 
in  your  Sunday-school.  It  is  a  beautifully  executed 
chromotype,  and  shows  the  entire  Holy  Land  in  per- 


20        Principles  of  Church  Government. 


spective.  There  is  nothing  else  like  it  iu  the  world 
of  art." 

So  thoroughly  was  the  entire  landscape  view  of  Pal- 
estine written  upon  this  artist's  own  soul  that  he  could 
reproduce  it  at  will  and  without  the  slightest  hesitation 
with  an  ordinary  pencil  or  brush  upon  any  wall  or  can- 
vas large  enough  to  receive  it.  Several  churches  in 
which  he  ministered  contain  copies  from  his  own  hand, 
and  he  executed  a  beautiful  design  in  mammoth  size  for 
his  own  use  in  lecturing. 

Several  of  our  prominent  Sunday-scliool  assembly 
resorts  also  contain  invaluable  results  in  models  of 
his  Palestine  rejiroduced.  Island  Park  boasts  the  finest 
model  of  the  Holy  Land  in  the  world,  but  Dr.  Perrine 
made  it  at  his  home  in  Albion.  Mr,  Jewell  S,  Albright, 
superintendent  of  models  for  the  park,  says  :  "  The 
model  exhibits  the  painstaking  accuracy  of  the  scien- 
tist and  the  delicate  taste  of  the  artist.  Th.it  Dr.  Per- 
rine was  both  scientist  and  artist  this  beautiful  model 
abundantly  proves.  The  student  here  finds  every  de- 
lineation of  the  detailed  features  of  the  Holy  Land 
perfectly  reliable.  The  traveler  who  comes  to  ex- 
amine it  is  constantly  delighted  to  find  his  recollec- 
tions of  the  minutest  observations  in  travel  faithfully 
reproduced.  It  is  constructed  upon  a  horizontal  scale 
of  fifteen  miles  to  the  foot,  and  a  vertical  scale  of  one 
thousand  feet  to  the  inch.  The  material  is  plaster  of 
Paris  ;  it  is  colored  to  nature  in  dry  color  upon  a  sizing 
of  glue." 

Dr.  Perrine  executed  several  other  creditable  works 
of  art.    He  attempted  several  copies  from  the  old 


The  Life  Story. 


21 


masters.  Just  before  his  death  he  had  planned  for 
Island  Park  Assembly  a  large  model  building,  so  ar- 
ranged as  to  contain  eight  models  of  Bible  lands  and 
cities.  His  model  of  Palestine  was  the  beginning  of 
this  comprehensive  apparatus.  The  second,  the  model 
of  Jerusalem,  was  to  have  been  executed  the  year  of 
his  death.  The  entire  series  were  to  be  set,  in  a  suit- 
able building,  upon  railway  tracks  centering  upon  a 
turn-table,  around  which  the  spectators  were  to  be 
seated  ns  in  an  amphitheater.  It  was  certainly  a  grand 
conception. 

His  enthusiasm  in  all  art  studies  knew  no  bounds. 
His  soul  was  thrilled  with  a  sublime  rapture  as  he 
studied  the  architecture,  paintings,  and  sculpture  of  the 
Old  "World,  and  he  had  gone  as  far  as  his  means  would 
allow  in  the  literature  of  the  subject.  His  lecture  upon 
"  The  Christian  in  Art  "  was  a  most  grand  and  truthful 
presentation  of  his  conceptions  and  views  of  the  testhetic 
in  the  past,  present,  and  future  of  the  Christian 
religion. 

Under  his  masterly  supervision  the  Art  Department 
of  Albion  College,  although  lacking  many  of  the  facili- 
ties usually  considered  requisite  in  such  a  field,  sprang 
into  great  usefulness  and  promise  as  an  auxiliary  to 
the  institution  designed  to  turn  out  thoroughly  edu- 
cated young  men  and  women  for  greater  efficiency  in 
the  various  callings  of  life.  His  travels  and  studies  in 
Europe  enabled  him  to  impart  invaluable  instruction, 
especially  to  those  who  could  not  themselves  enjoy  the 
privilege  of  extended  travel  supplementary  to  their 
collegiate  course. 


22        Pkixciplks  of  Church  Government. 


One  says  of  him,  however,  that  "  as  a  teacher  he 
lacked  that  consecutive  attention  to  barren  details 
which  constitutes  the  perfection  of  the  modern  educa- 
tional tread-mill.  It  was  not  uncommon  for  him  to  fire 
up  with  enthusiasm,  and  spend  nearly  the  whole  hour  of 
recitation  in  general  questions  related  to  morals  and  to 
the  grander  achievements  of  mankind.  But  what  was 
lacking  in  drill  was  more  tlian  compensated  in  the 
higher  philosophic  impulse  which  he  communicated  to 
his  pupils,  and  in  the  moral  principles  which  he  in- 
stilled." 

In  1871,  after  he  had  severed  his  connection  with 
Albion  College,  that  institution  conferred  upon  him  the 
degree  of  doctor  in  divinity,  a  distinction  which  he 
most  worthily  bore,  and  in  conferring  which  the  college 
did  itself  a  high  honor. 

Intellectually  Dr.  Perrine  had  few  peers  in  his  pro- 
fession. Added  to  his  aesthetic  taste,  his  fertile  and 
strong  imagination,  were  the  noble  traits  of  high  aspi- 
rations and  an  indomitable  will.  "  His  religious  char- 
acter centered  in  an  intense  consciousness  of  God  and 
firm  loyalty  to  truth  and  duty.  Prayer  with  him  was 
intercourse  with  God,  and  its  province  embraced  all  his 
interests,  temporal  and  spiritual.  He  had  an  implicit 
faith  in  the  Gospel  as  an  agency  for  the  world's  reno- 
vation, and  to  him  its  future  mission  embraced  all  hu- 
man progress,  and  stretched  far  into  the  ages  to  come. 
To  him  all  truth  was  divine  truth,  all  science  th«  sci- 
ence of  God.  He  recognized  a  primitive  divine  impulse 
in  all  human  achievement,  and  esteemed  it  his  most  ex- 
alted mission  to  incorporate  divine  truth  with  the 


The  Life  Stoky. 


23 


advancing  tide  of  human  progress.  All  his  artistic 
studies  and  labors  were  a  devout  tribute  to  the  Gospel 
of  Christ." 

Dr.  Perrine  was  actively  engaged  in  pastoral  work 
when  overtaken  by  his  fatal  illness.  His  latter  appoint- 
ments, in  the  vicinity  of  Albion,  were  given  him  in  con- 
sequence of  the  long-continued  illness  of  one  of  his 
daughters.  She  could  not  safely  be  moved  from  place 
to  place,  and  so  the  devoted  father  continued  his  min- 
isterial labors  on  less  important  charges  that  he  might 
dwell  with  his  family  in  his  own  home  in  Albion, 
Until  within  a  week  of  his  death,  which  occurred  Jan- 
uary 22,  1881,  his  health  appeared  to  be  as  good  as 
usual.  Pleuro-pneumonia  suddenly  snatched  him  away 
when  but  fifty-three  years  of  age.  Ilis  funeral  from 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  at  Albion  was  attended 
by  an  immense  throng  of  people.  The  services  were, 
by  special  request  of  the  deceased,  in  charge  of  Rev. 
Dr.  L.  R.  Fiske,  president  of  Albion  College.  About 
twenty-five  of  his  clerical  brethren  of  Michigan  Confer- 
ence were  in  attendance.  He  had  expressed  a  desire  to 
be  borne  to  his  rest  by  these  partners  of  his  toil  and 
triumphs.  At  the  residence  prayer  was  offered  by  Dr. 
Fiske.  The  remains,  which  wore  a  calm,  natural  ex- 
pression, were  then  conveyed  to  the  church,  where  the 
services  were  introduced  by  the  reading  of  1  Cor.  xv, 
37-58,  by  Rev.  T.  H.  Jacokes.  The  choir  sang  "  Rock 
of  Ages."  Rev.  H.  Hall  led  in  prayer.  After  the  an- 
them, "  Remember  mercy,  O  God,"  President  Fiske 
gave  a  brief  biographical  sketch  of  the  deceased,  and 
said  : 


24        Principles  of  Church  Government. 


"  Dr.  Perrine  has  filled  many  of  the  most  responsible 
appointments  in  the  State,  and  given  seven  years  of 
successful  labor  to  Albion  College,  where  he  will  be 
affectionately  remembered.  He  took  a  deep  interest  in 
David  Preston's  scheme  for  endowing  the  college,  and 
contributed  much  to  its  success.  In  his  death  the 
cause  of  Christian  education  has  lost  one  of  its  best 
friends.  He  went  to  Palestine,  studying  the  land  and 
its  story,  that  he  might  better  understand  and  teach 
the  word  of  God.  He  was  a  member  of  the  General 
Conference  in  1872,  1876,  and  1880,  and  was  efficient. 
Among  the  strongest  of  his  personal  traits  may  be 
designated  : 

"  1.  Very  positive  convictions  of  truth,  right,  and 
duty. 

"  2.  He  never  consulted  expediency,  and  was  not 
afraid  to  express  his  convictions. 

"  3.  He  was  sanguine  and  enthusiastic.  He  believed 
with  his  whole  heart,  and  threw  his  whole  soul  into 
what  he  believed. 

"  4,  His  heart  and  sympathies  flowed  out  in  his  con- 
victions. He  had  a  large  heart,  and  his  intellectual 
earnestness  did  not  dry  up  his  sympathies. 

"  5.  He  was  eminently  religious,  and  Ave  may  say  in- 
tellectually religious.  He  rested  every  thing  upon  the 
Bible  and  upon  Christ.  With  him  there  was  no  chasm 
between  nature  and  God.  Religions  exercises  were  his 
delight.  His  imaginative  intellect,  which  clothed  every 
thing  with  beauty,  was  quickened  and  irradiated  by  the 
Holy  Spirit." 

Dr.  Fiske  closed  by  reading  a  few  sentences  from  the 


The  Life  Stoey. 


25 


pen  of  Mrs.  Perrine  relating  to  ber  husband's  last 
hours  : 

"  Thursday  morning,  after  lying  several  hours  near 
death,  as  it  seemed  (although  perfectly  conscious),  he 
said  :  '  I  have  been  looking  into  heaven.  I  seemed  to 
be  standing  on  the  frontier  of  the  universe.  I  wish  I 
could  tell  you  what  I  saw.  On  one  side  was  heaven  ; 
on  the  other  the.  universe,  shadowed,  but  across  the 
shadows  were  beams  of  light.'  And  he  repeated  pas- 
sage after  passage  which  he  saw  upon  these  beams, 
embodying  the  great  truths  of  the  Gospel.  He  ex- 
claimed: 'The  door  between  heaven  and  me  was  very 
thin.  But  T  think  I  shall  live,  and  I  shall  be  more 
earnest  in  my  Master's  work.  Nothing  pays  except 
what  we  do  for  the  Lord.  It  is  a  great  thing  to  enter 
heaven.' 

"Saturday  morning,  when  he  found  himself  again 
sinking,  he  dictated  in  perfect  composure  messages  to 
absent  friends,  and  gave  his  last  words  of  counsel  and 
love  to  his  wife  and  daughters.  He  then  said  :  '  I  have 
no  unkind  feelings  toward  any  of  my  brethren  of  the 
Conference,  toward  any  of  the  bishops,  or  editors, 
or  official  brethren  of  the  Church.'  When  asked  if 
there  was  any  darkness,  his  face  lighting  up  with 
holy  joy,  he  said  with  great  emphasis:  '0,  no!  I 
have  a  right  to  heaven!''  Then  he  added:  'I  am 
the  vilest  of  sinners,  and  in  myself  have  no  right;  but 
in  the  merit  and  grace  of  Christ  I  have  a  right  to 
eternal  life.' " 

Rev.  J  ohn  Graham  followed  with  a  few  earnest  words 
expressive  of  his  high  admiration  for  Dr.  Perrine's 


26        Principles  op  Church  Government, 

character,  saying  that  lie  would  cherish  his  memory  as 
a  friend  of  young  men. 

Rev.  Isaac  Taylor  felt  that,  like  Elijah,  Dr.  Perrine 
had  gone  to  heaven  suddenly,  leaving  his  mantle  to  fall 
upon  younger  ministers  whom  he  loved  so  ardently  and 
served  so  well.  He  was  no  ordinary  man.  If  his  ac- 
quirements, labors,  and  influence  were  estimated  as  re- 
presenting the  breadth  of  a  life,  he  had  lived  long  and 
accomplished  much. 

Rev.  George  S.  Ilickey  pronounced  a  beautiful  and 
impressive  eulogy,  in  the  course  of  which  he  said :  "  We 
do  not  deny  that  there  is  a  mystery  about  this  death — 
as  there  is  about  every  death.  Our  minds  and  hearts 
are  now  shadowed  as  we  ask,  Why  was  one  endowed 
with  such  natural  and  acquired  gifts  cut  down  so  sud- 
denly in  the  midst  of  his  years,  and  under  such  circum- 
stances of  acute  pain  and  agony  ?  Had  it  been  left  for 
us  to  decide  we  would  have  said  that  we  could  not  yet 
spai-e  him — his  genius,  talent,  culture,  and  ardent  zeal 
for  God.  Dr.  Perrine  was  cultured  without  affectation; 
scholarly,  but  spiritual.  He  was  a  man  that  abhorred 
the  very  appearance  of  evil,  and  cleaved  to  that  which  is 
good.  His  was  a  pure  spirit.  His  speech  was  always 
with  grace,  and  dignified.  He  was  a  man  full  of  faith 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  His  heroic  spirit  would  have 
dared  to  die  for  the  truth.  He  was  a  man  of  positive 
views  and  intense  convictions,  and  he  had  moral  cour- 
age and  stamina.  He  stood  firmly  on  the  adamantine 
rock  of  his  own  clear  convictions,  against  which  the 
turbulent  waves  of  human  opinion  might  dash  harm- 
lessly, and  foam  and  break  and  retire.    He  was  bold, 


The  Life  Story. 


27 


aggressive,  persistent,  radical.  He  had  opinions  of 
his  own,  and  dared  to  utter  them  in  the  face  of  op- 
position, but  cherished  the  kindest  feeling  toward 
his  opponents.  He  was  in  a  fair  way  to  'bring 
things  to  pass,'  which  was  Bishop  Ames's  idea  of  a 
great  man." 

Memorial  services  were  held  in  honor  of  Dr.  Per- 
rine  in  several  localities  throughout  Michigan,  and 
many  warmly  appreciative  allusions  were  made  to  his 
character  and  life  in  both  the  secular  and  religious 
press. 

The  Laiising  Journal,  edited  by  Hon.  George  P. 
Sanford,  contained  a  full  column  of  eulogistic  matter,  of 
which  the  following  is  an  extract  :  "  Dr.  Perrine  was  one 
of  the  most  widely  known  and  most  dearly  beloved  cler- 
gymen in  Michigan.  His  genial  and  generous  nature 
made  him  the  trusted  friend  of  all  who  knew  him  at  all 
intimately.  He  was  a  man  endowed  by  nature  with 
varied  and  unusual  abilities.  His  native  powers  had 
been  stimulated  and  cultivated  by  thorough  education, 
extended  culture,  and  profound  thought.  An  alert 
mind,  a  vivid  imagination,  a  tender  yet  strong  sensi- 
bility, and  a  ready  and  copious  command  of  clear, 
strong,  and  beautiful  language  made  him  one  of  the 
most  eloquent  orators  of  the  country.  His  was  a  most 
rare  combination  of  mental  powers.  His  mind  was  not 
less  massive  and  strong  than  brilliant  and  sentimental. 
A  truly  eloquent  man,  he  was  also  exceptionally  able 
in  debate,  and  invincible  in  argument.  He  forged  the 
chain  of  logic  with  invincible  links  of  steel  in  the  same 
paragraph  in  which  he  showered  the  flowers  of  rhetoric 


28 


Principles  op  Church  Government. 


and  the  gems  of  impassioned  eloquence  tliick  as 
leaves  of  Vallombrosa.  A  vivid  fancy,  strong  logical 
powers,  clear  and  forcible  statement,  broad  and  power- 
ful grasp  of  thought,  varied  and  accurate  learning,  and 
profound  philosophy  made  him  one  of  the  most  thor- 
oughly equipped  men  of  his  time." 

A  guiding  principle  of  his  life  was  never  to  seek  and 
never  to  shun  responsibility.  When  a  responsibility 
came  to  him  spontaneously  he  made  thorough  prepara- 
tion for  the  discharge  of  the  trust. 

When  first  elected  by  the  Michigan  Conference  a 
member  of  the  Board  of  Ti-iistees  of  North-western 
University,  at  Evanstown,  in  1856  or  '57,  in  view  of  his 
inexperience  in  this  line  of  work  he  thought  the  most 
suitable  thing  for  him  to  do  was  to  make  as  thorough 
a  study  as  possible  of  the  subject  of  university  endow- 
ments. 

In  doing  this  he  found  that  some  of  the  richest  uni- 
versities of  the  Old  World  were  originally  endowed 
with  large  grants  of  land  of  moderate  value,  which  they 
held  and  rented,  and  whic-h,  finally,  by  their  great  in- 
crease in  value,  yielded  immense  revenues. 

At  the  first  meeting  of  the  board  which  Mr.  Perrine 
attended  he  learned  that  the  North-western  University 
lands  had  just  been  thrown  upon  the  market,  and  at 
once  persuaded  a  member  of  the  board  who  had  voted 
for  the  motion  to  sell  to  move  its  reconsideration. 
He  then  gave  the  board  the  results  of  his  studies  in 
university  endowments,  urging  the  withdrawal  of  the 
lands  from  market. 

This  was  done,  and  the  lands  were  leased  for  a  long 


The  Life  Story. 


29 


term  of  years,  with  the  stipulation  that  at  the  end  of 
every  five  years  they  should  be  subject  to  revaluation, 
and  to  a  consequent  advance  in  rent. 

Mr.  Perrine,  who  received  at  the  time  warm  expies- 
sions  of  approval  from  members  of  the  board  for  his 
work,  always  remembered  it  with  satisfaction,  believing 
that  he  had  thereby  served  the  interests  of  the  uni- 
versity. 

Dr.  Perrine  is  best  remembered  by  his  work  in  the 
General  Conference.  He  early  interested  himself  in  tlie 
question  of  lay  representation,  studied  the  subject  in 
all  its  bearings,  and  being  so  radical  an  American  in  all 
his  sentiments  and  sympathies  he  determined  to  con- 
tend for  a  plan  of  lay  delegation  which  would  harmonize 
with  American  ideas  of  government,  and  at  the  same 
time  conform  to  the  teachings  of  the  word  of  God. 
His  penetrating  mind  clearly  perceived  the  character 
of  tlie  struggle  before  him.  He  earnestly  believed  tliat 
in  order  to  be  i)erfectly  effective  the  lay  element  must 
be  extricated  from  that  clerical  domination  which  has 
been  the  very  genius  of  Methodism,  and  he  well  knew 
that  such  extrication  would  cost  him  or  somebody  else 
an  herculean  effort,  liability  to  failure,  and  the  cer- 
tainty of  being  misjudged,  and  perhaps  denounced  and 
ovci-thrown.  Yet  he  hesitated  not.  Duty  first ;  self- 
interest  afterward. 

"  At  first,"  says  Dr.  Arnold,  "  his  '  plan '  for  a  sepa- 
rate house  for  the  laity  received  a  stern  repulse,  and 
subjected  him  to  a  pitiless  storm  of  ridicule.  But  he 
never  faltered,  and  the  Michigan  Conference  honored 
itself  more  than  can  yet  be  estimated  by  returning 


80 


Principles  of  Church  Government. 


liim  twice  to  the  arena  of  conflict.  His  plan  is  now 
the  property  of  the  Church,  and  the  outcome  of  the 
last  General  Conference  (that  of  1880)  riveted  the 
conviction  tliat  if  the  laymen  cannot  rise  to  legisla- 
tive independence  and  sense  of  responsibility  in  a 
higher  degree  than  at  present,  lay  delegation  is  utterly 
futile." 

We  shall  trace  the  history  of  the  lay  delegation 
movement  more  at  length  in  a  succeeding  chapter;  but 
"we  wish  here  to  note  the  progress  of  Dr.  Perrine's  ideas 
during  the  twelve  years  of  his  active  participation  iu 
General  Conference  deliberations  and  the  accompanying 
debates  of  the  Church. 

In  1872,  on  the  motion  in  the  General  Conference 
which  proved  the  first  signal  test  nf  the  sentiment  of 
that  body  as  to  tlie  expediency  of  two  separate,  distinct, 
and  concurrent  houses.  Dr.  Perrine  stood  absolutely 
alone.  His  solitary  "Nay"  rang  out  full  and  clear  in 
that  Conference  room,  and  we  find  in  his  copy  of  the 
General  Conference  Journal  for  that  year  a  leaf  turned 
at  the  page  where  tlie  vote  is  recorded,  and  a  hand 
drawn  in  ink  by  himself  pointing  to  the  fadeless 
record  of  iiis  inininrtal  No  ! 

Similarly,  in  1876,  on  the  twenty-fourth  day  of  the 
session,  when  he  offered  a  substitute  for  so  much  of  the 
report  on  lay  delegation  as  related  to  the  election  of 
laymen,  providing  for  the  division  of  the  General  Con- 
ference into  a  "  Clerical  Senate  and  a  House  of  Lay 
Representative^,"  he  has  marked  the  result  of  the  vote  in 
a  way  to  be  remembered.  But  he  stood  not  alone  now. 
Many  of  the  noblest  minds  in  that  body  entertained 


The  Life  Story. 


31 


1  is  opinions  .and  were  prepared  to  embody  them  in 
their  ballots.  On  the  motion  to  lay  his  substitute  on 
the  table  the  vote  stood  197  for  to  90  against.  This 
was  an  encouraging  advance,  from  one  to  ninety  in  four 
years.  When  a  leading  delegate  afterward  remarked 
to  him,  "  Of  course,  Perrine,  you  are  right,  but  I  tell 
them  you  are  the  wretchedest  leader  under  the  heav- 
ens," Dr.  Perrine  replied  : 

"  Doctor,  how  many  supporters  had  I  in  Brooklyn 
in  1872,  when  you  and  the  whole  Church  stood  against 
me?  lam  happy  to  note  at  least  one  respectable  re- 
tainer. Hereafter  I  will  see  that  you  are  respectably 
led." 

In  1880  the  question  came  up  again,  Dr.  Perrine 
leading  among  its  advocates.  The  plan  whicli  he  sub- 
mitted is  published  elsewhere  in  this  volume,  and  he 
had  the  satisfaction  of  seeing  a  very  able  committee 
report  in  favor  of  the  proposed  division,  and  of  hearing 
his  views  advocated  by  many.  The  motion  to  adopt 
resulted  as  follows:  Yeas,  110;  nays,  211.  The  ad- 
vancing popularity  of  his  views  w^ill  be  noted. 

In  this  connection  we  may  fittingly  append  Rev.  Dr. 
J.  M.  Buckley's  notice  of  Dr.  Perrine  and  his  work,  as 
it  appeared  in  the  editorial  columns  of  the  New  York 
(Jhristian  Advocate,  February  24,  1881.  After  de- 
ploring the  suddenness  of  Dr.  Perrine's  departure  the 
editor  said: 

"  We  knew  Dr.  Perrine  and  highly  respected  him;  nor 
did  we  conceal  that  respect  until  his  death.  It  has  been 
our  deliberate  judgment,  olten  expressed  for  more  than 
fifteen  years,  that  his  intellectual  powers  and  acquisi- 


32         Principles  of  Church  Government. 


tions  were  greater  than  those  of  most  professional  men 
— far  greater  tlian  were  possessed  by  many  who  re- 
garded him  as  much  inferior  to  themselves.  During 
a  residence  in  Detroit,  from  1863  to  1866,  we  met  him 
frequently,  and  soon  discovered  that  he  had  views  upon 
almost  every  subject,  and  was  able  to  defend  them  by 
forcible  argument  and  a  wide  range  of  facts.  A  sus- 
ceptibility, a  tendency  to  rhapsody,  nppeared  in  his  nat- 
ure, which,  fully  as  much  as  his  abilities  and  acquire- 
ments, rendered  him  a  marked  character  among  his 
brethren.  Whatever  theme  occupied  him  absorbed 
him,  and  he  felt  that  it  transcended  all  others.  Grad- 
ually overcoming  the  prejudice  against  him  as  an  un- 
practical man,  he  a])peared  at  the  General  Conference 
of  18V2  profoundly  impressed  that  the  Church  was 
about  to  commit  a  great  error  in  confounding  the  func- 
tions of  the  ministry  and  laity.  Dr.  Perrine's  persist- 
ency led  strangers  to  entertain  erroneous  views  of  his 
spirit  and  abilities.  That  they  might  have  an  oppor- 
tunity to  see  him  in  another  aspect,  we  secured  him  an 
invitation  t<i  preach  in  an  important  church.  The  dis- 
course was  not  surpassed  by  any  delivered  during  the 
session.  At  Baltimore  he  made  another  effort  for  a 
hearing,  with  similar  results.  That  he  might  speak  at 
length,  he  began  before  the  rules  of  order  were  adopted, 
claiming  that  he  could  not  be  prevented  from  speaking 
as  long  as  he  pleased.  In  this  view  he  was  right,  but 
was  suppressed  by  an  arbitrary  assumption  of  ])ower 
on  tlie  part  of  the  presiding  officer.  Against  this  a 
protest  was  made.  It  is  due  to  the  chairman  to  say 
that  he  defended  himself  on  the  following  grounds : 


The  Life  Story. 


33 


'  Though  no  rules  had  been  adopted,  the  bishops  are 
cliarged  with  the  supervision  of  the  interests  of  the 
Church;  the  General  Conference  has  traditions;  it  was 
a  critical  occasion.  It  was  obvious  that  the  whole 
Conference  desired  to  proceed  to  business,  and  it  should 
not  be  reduced  to  chaos  by  a  technicality.  An  appeal 
might  have  been  taken,  but  was  not.  My  motive  was 
not  to  oppress,  but  to  facilitate  the  business  of  organ- 
ization.' Notwithstanding  this  rebuff  he  grew,  in 
the  meetings  of  the  committees,  in  esteem  at  every 
session,  and  was  welcomed  in  1880  by  all  the  former 
members. 

"Dr.  Porrine  would  have  attained  the  greatest  influ- 
ence if  he  had  mastered  the  science  of  debate  in  its  re- 
lations to  the  impatience  of  a  large  deliberative  bodj'; 
if  he  could  have  known  when  to  strike  and  how.  He 
had  the  oratorical  temperament  in  excess,  and  some- 
times became  excited  before  his  audience  were  as  fully 
aroused  to  the  importance  of  his  theme  as  he  was 
himself.  He  could  also  be  overheated  by  his  own 
rhetoric.  If  these  peculiarities  had  not  impeded  his 
efforts,  no  man  in  the  Church  would  have  surpassed 
liim  in  power  to  effect  his  ends.  At  home  he  was  re- 
spected and  loved. 

"  Let  not  his  career  in  the  General  Conferences  of 
which  he  was  a  member  be  considei'ed  a  failure.  His 
fundamental  doctrine  of  the  radical  distinction  between 
the  ministry  and  the  laity  is  held  to-day  by  many  of 
the  wisest  men  in  the  Church,  who,  while  they  approve 
lay  representation,  greatly  desire  to  see  the  relations  of 
the  orders  more  clearly  defined.  ...  He  was  enthusi- 
3 


34:        Principles  of  Church  Government. 


astic  in  every  thing — in  theology,  literature,  natural 
science,  art,  and  the  theory  of  government.  He  was 
remarkable  enough  to  make  obvious  his  defects,  and 
these  showed  that,  without  them,  he  would  have  been 
great.  His  death  removes  an  interesting  figure  from 
the  Church,  a  genial  friend  irom  a  large  circle,  and  a 
devout  minister  from  his  work." 


The  Lay  Delegation  Movement.  35 


CHAPTER  ir. 

THE  LAY  DELEGATION  MOVEMENT. 

Eventful  indeed  is  tlie  history  of  lay  delegation  in 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  "Originally,  and 
for  many  years,  the  Church  was  governed  by  the  trav- 
eling ministers,  through  Aiinu:il  Conferences  and  a  dele- 
gated General  Conference.  Early  in  this  century  symp- 
toms of  a  desire  for  a  change  in  the  form  of  government 
appeared.  About  1822  the  Wesleynn  Repository,  a  paper 
advocating  reform  (as  it  was  then  called),  was  established 
in  Philadelphia.  This  was  followed  by  a  convention  of 
'reformers'  in  Baltimore  in  1824,  who  established  as 
their  periodical  organ  in  that  city  The  Mutual  Eirjhts. 
The  objects  of  attack  were  the  episcopacy  and  the  cler- 
ical government  of  the  Church.  In  1827  Dr.  Thomas  E. 
Bond  issued  an  appeal  to  jNEetlioilists  against  l;iy  dele- 
gation, which  exerted  a  great  influence  in  determining 
the  maintenance  of  the  existing  system.  At  the  General 
Conference  of  1828  the  subject  was  discussed  in  the 
celebrated  '  Report  on  Petitions  and  Memorials,'  which 
denied  the  claims  of  the  petitioners.  This  report  was 
unanimously  adopted.  By  this  time  Church  proceedings 
had  been  instituted  against  some  of  the  'relorm  party' 
in  Baltimore,  which  resulted  in  expulsion.  Others  with- 
drew, and  in  1830  the  constitution  of  the  'Methodist 
Protestant  Church '  was  formed.    The  controversy  was 


36        Principles  op  Church  Government. 


accompanied  and  followed  with  great  bitterness  on  both 
sides.  Lookeil  at  from  this  distance  of  time,  it  is  apparent 
that  both  parties  numbered  among  their  leaders  good  and 
strong  men,  who  unfortunately  stood  u^jon  extreme  and 
irreconcilable  propositions.  The  '  reformers'  claimed  the 
admission  of  the  laity  to  the  General  Conference  on  the 
ground  of  the  right  of  tlie  people  to  share  in  ecclesiastical 
legislation.  This  claim  was  denied  by  the  conservative 
side,  chiefly  on  the  ground  that  the  General  Conference 
possessed  '  no  strictly  legislative  powers.' 

"  The  discussion  rested,  after  the  organization  of  the 
Methodist  Protestant  Church,  for  more  than  twenty 
years.  Shortly  before  the  General  Conference  of  1852 
a  convention  of  laymen  was  held  in  Philadelphia  to  take 
measures  for  bringing  the  subject  before  the  Church 
once  more.  This  convention,  however,  disclaimed  all 
connection  with  the  principles  of  the  reformers  of  1828, 
and  asked  for  lay  re])resentation  on  the  ground  of  ex- 
pediency solely.  Dr.  Thomas  E.  Bond,  the  great  an- 
tagonist of  the  '  radicals,'  met  the  members  of  the 
committee  in  the  most  friendly  spirit,  and  conceded 
to  them  that  lay  delegation  put  on  the  ground  of  ex- 
pediency was  an  open  question.  While  still  denying 
the  claim  of  right  he  went  so  far  as  to  suggest  a  plan 
of  lay  co-operation  in  the  Annual  Conferences.  The 
petiiion  of  the  convention  to  the  General  Conference 
■was  denied.  In  the  General  Conference  of  1856  an 
appeal  for  lay  delegation  was  presented  again,  but  re- 
ceived very  little  attention.  By  1860  such  progress 
had  been  made  that  the  General  Conference,  assem- 
bled in  that  year,  referred  the  measure  to  a  popular 


The  Lay  Delegation  Movement.  37 


and  miiiisteiial  vote,  to  be  taken  in  1861  and  1862. 
Both  voles  were  adverse  to  lay  representation;  but  the 
vote,  though  adverse,  developed  the  fact  of  a  growing 
favor  for  this  inn)ortant  measure.  The  .MetJiodist, 
which  was  established  in  1860,  devoted  itself  to  the  ad- 
vocacy of  it;  other  papers,  especially  the  Zioii's Herald 
and  the  North-western  Christian  Advocate,  urged  it 
upon  the  Church.  A  largely  attended  convention  of 
laymen  was  held  in  New  York  in  the  spring  of  1863. 
At  this  meeting  it  was  resolved  to  hold  another  con- 
vention, concurrently  with  the  session  of  the  General 
Conference  at  Philadel])lii:i,  in  1SG4.  The  convention 
Avas  so  held,  and  presented  through  a  deputation  of  its 
delegates  a  memorial  to  the  Genera!  Conference,  though 
without  immediate  result.  A  third  convention  was 
held,  concurrently  with  the  session  of  the  General  Con- 
ference at  Chicago,  in  1868.  At  this  Conference  a 
popular  and  ministerial  vote  was  ordered  for  the  second 
time."  * 

It  must  not  be  inferred,  liowever,  that  for  some  years 
ju'ior  to  1868  the  laymen  throughout  the  Church 
were  in  favor  of  lay  representation,  while  the  ministers 
were  opposed.  The  lay  conventions  at  Philadelphia 
and  Chicago  did  not  represent  the  sintiuients  of  all 
their  brethren.  For  instance,  a;  large  number  of  lay- 
men from  different  States  who  were  present  at  the 
General  Conference  in  Chicago  presented  to  that  body 
a  lengthy  and  earnest  memorial,  in  which  they  entered 
formal  dissent  from  the  statement  of  facts  presented 
to  the  Conference  by  the  laymen's  convention,  and  pro- 
•  &.  R.  C/  in  MeClintock  &  Stronjj's  Cydopixdia.  I 


38        Principles  of  Church  Government, 


tested  against  its  assumptions  and  recommendations. 
They  represented  that  their  most  careful  examination 
of  the  subjects  had  brought  them  to  the  conchision 
that  the  Conferences  had  most  emphatically  pronounced 
against  lay  representation  until  it  should  be  fully  ascer- 
tained that  the  Church  at  large  desired  it,  and  that 
hitherto  the  Church  had  manifested  no  such  desire. 
On  the  contrary,  eight  years  before,  the  Church  had, 
by  a  formal  vote  of  the  entire  laity,  emphatically  dis- 
approved of  the  proposed  innovation.  In  justification 
of  their  sentiments  and  positions  they  further  said: 

"  Our  form  of  Church  polity,  tested  by  an  experience 
of  a  hundred  years,  has  demonstrated  its  efficiency  as 
an  agency  for  both  evangelical  propagandism  and 
Christian  culture.  A  system  so  eminently  productive 
of  fruits  ought  certainly  not  to  be  subverted  for  light 
causes. 

"  Our  centenary  celebration  brought  to  our  view  the 
efficiency  of  the  system  in  its  first  workings,  and  also 
demonstrated  the  faith  and  confidence  of  our  people  ia 
its  future.    Is  it  wise  to  trifle  with  that  confidence? 

"As  our  Church  is  now  governed  there  is  a  most 
happy  separauoii  of  the  spiritual  and  secular  offices 
of  the  body.  The  ministry,  as  the  servants  of  the 
Head  of  the  Church,  are  at  tlie  head  of  the  spiritual 
offices,  while  the  laity  hold  and  manage  all  the  Church 
property,  the  ministry  having  no  legal  claims  even  for 
their  own  subsistence.  If  the  laiiy  are  called  upon  to 
trust  the  ministry  in  the  administration  of  spiritual  af- 
fairs, so  the  ministry  is  compelled  to  trust  the  laity  in 
secular  and  pecuniary  offices.    A  mutual  confidence  is 


TiiK  Lay  Delegation  Movement. 


39 


tluis  called  for,  and  hitherto  it  has  been  fully  given  by 
both  parties.  We  believe  it  altogether  safe  to  exercise 
it  still  further.  .  .  .  AVe  attribute  a  large  share  of  the 
efficiency  and  greatness  of  our  Church,  under  God,  to 
its  peculiar  form  of  government,  and  shall  dread  to 
see  it  made  to  conform  to  other  and  less  successful  ec- 
clesiastical systems." 

But  the  petition  of  these  conservative  laymen  was 
of  no  avail.  The  popular  and  ministerial  vote  upon 
the  question  was  ordered  by  the  General  Conference, 
and  the  war  was  on. 

Following  is  the  text  of  the  plan  submitted,  as  taken 
from  the  General  Conference  Journal: 

"  The  lay  delegates  shall  consist  of  two  laymen  for 
each  Annual  Conference,  except  sucli  Conferences  as 
have  but  one  ministerial  delegate,  which  Conferences 
shall  be  entitled  to  one  lay  delegate  each. 

"The  lay  delegates  shall  be  chosen  by  an  electoral 
conference  of  laymen,  which  shall  assemble  for  the  pur- 
pose on  the  third  day  of  the  session  of  the  Annual 
Conference,  at  the  place  of  its  meeting,  at  its  session 
immediately  pi-eceding  the  General  Conference. 

"  The  electoral  conference  shall  be  composed  of  one 
layman  from  each  circuit  or  station  within  the  bounds 
of  the  Annual  Conference,  and  on  assembling  the  elec- 
toral conference  shall  organize  by  electing  a  chairman 
and  secretary  of  their  own  number;  such  laymen  to  be 
chosen  by  the  last  Quarterly  Conference  preceding  the 
time  of  its  assembling;  provided,  that  no  layman 
shall  be  chosen  a  delegate  either  to  the  electoral  con- 
ference or  to  the  General  Conference  who  shall  be 


40 


Principles  of  Church  Government. 


under  twenty-five  years  of  age,  or  who  shall  not  have 
been  a  member  of  the  Church  in  full  connection  for 
the  Hve  consecutive  years  preceding  the  elections. 

"Alter  Answer  3  as  follows,  page  46: 

"Answer  3.  At  all  times  when  the  General  Confer- 
ence is  met  it  shall  take  two  thirds  of  the  whole  num- 
ber of  ministerial  and  lay  delegates  to  form  a  quorum 
for  transacting  business. 

"Tlie  ministerial  and  lay  delegates  shall  sit  and  de- 
liberate together  as  one  body,  but  they  shall  vote  sepa- 
rately whenever  such  separate  vote  shall  be  demanded 
by  one  third  of  either  order,  and  in  such  cases  the  con- 
current \  ote  of  botli  orders  shall  be  necessary  to  com- 
plete an  action." 

From  the  foregoing  it  will  be  remembered: 

1.  That  the  electoral  conferences  were  to  choose  the 
lay  delegates. 

2.  That  the  electoral  conferences  were  to  be  composed 
of  one  layman  from  each  circuit  or  station. 

3.  That  the  delegates  to  each  electoral  conference 
were  to  be  elected  by  the  quarterly  conferences. 

4.  That  each  lay  delegate  must  be  not  less  than 
twentv-five  years  old,  and  a  member  of  the  Church  for 
not  less  than  five  years  preceding  election. 

5.  That  the  ministerial  and  lay  delegates  were  to  de- 
liberate together  in  the  General  Conference. 

6.  That  a  separate  vote  could  not  be  had  except  on  a 
formal  demand  of  one  third  of  either  order. 

7.  Tliat  the  quorum  for  the  transaction  of  business 
was  to  consist  of  two  thirds  of  the  whole  number  of 
ministerial  and  lay  delegates.   . . 


The  Lay  Delegation  Movement.  41 


Against  the  foregoing  "  plan"  of  lay  delegation  Dr. 
Perrine,  with  many  others,  threw  himself  with  all  his 
might.  He  did  not  oppose  the  principle  of  lay  delega- 
tion, but  rather  favored  it  ;  it  was  the  plan  he  consid- 
ered unseriptural,  un-Methodistic,  and  wholly  obnoxious. 
This  "  plan,"  he  claimed,  was  wholly  separate  from  the 
principle,  and  that  the  formal  approval  of  the  latter  by 
popular  and  ministerial  vote  was  not  of  necessity  an 
approval  of  tlie  former.  Distinguished  opinions  favored 
this  view.  At  the  New  Hampshire  Conference  held  at 
Nashua,  April,  1870,  Rev.  Dr.  L.  D.  Barrows  asked  for 
information  as  to  what  the  Conference  was  to  vote  for. 
"Does  our  vote,"  he  inquired,  "include  the  adoption 
of  the  plan  of  the  General  Conference,  or  simply  the 
amendment  of  the  second  restrictive  rule,  so  as  to 
allow  the  General  Conference  to  introduce  a  moderate 
lay  delegation  ?  " 

Rev.  J.  Pike  said  he  considered  it  to  be  the  latter, 
and  moved  that  the  Conference  respectfully  request  the 
bishop  to  give  his  views  upon  the  question. 

The  motion  unanimously  prevailed,  and  in  compliance 
therewith  Bishop  Simpson  said  that  while  he  would  not, 
in  the  chair,  express  any  opinion  on  the  merits  of  the 
question,  yet  on  the  legal  point  involved  his  opinion 
was  that  the  vote  of  the  Conference  was  not  to  he  on 
the  plan,  but  simplj  and  alone  on  the  alteration  of  the 
restrictive  rule.  He  said:  "  It  was  admitted  by  all  that 
the  last  General  Conference  had  not  enacted  any  plan, 
but  only  proposed  it,  and  that  the  last  General  Confer- 
ence had  no  power  to  bind  the  next."  He  said  further: 
"  If  three  fourths  of  the  members  of  the  Annual  Con- 


42        Pkinciples  of  Church  Government. 


ferences  should  vote  for  the  alteration  of  the  rule  it 
could  not  be  accomplished  until  two  thirds  of  the  en- 
suing General  Conference  should  concur  ;  that  no  part 
of  the  i)lan  submitted  could  go  into  effect,  except  the 
election  of  the  two  lay  delegates  as  prescribed,  before 
the  next  General  Conference.  That  before  their  admis- 
sion into  General  Conference  not  only  must  the  rule  be 
altered,  but  a  plan  for  their  introduction  and  duties 
must  be  enacted,  then  a  vote  must  be  iiad  on  their  for- 
mal admission." 

Bishop  Baker,  who  was  present,  was  announced  as 
concurring  in  this  decision.  The  Conference  cast  its 
ballot  in  the  light  of  said  decision,  the  vote  standing 
yeas  68,  nays  25. 

The  Methodist  of  April  16,  and  Zion's  Herald  of 
April  14,  same  year,  Riid:  "Bishop  Janes,  before  the 
New  York  Conference,  declared  that  the  vote  of  tlie 
Conference  did  not  touch  the  plan,  but  only  gave  the 
General  Conference  power  to  admit  laymen  to  its 
body."  Ziori's  Herald  of  May  5  said  :  "  The  plan  w'lW 
be  in  the  hands  of  the  next  General  Conference,  to  al- 
ter and  amend  at  pleasure.  Such  is  the  opinion  o^ 
Bishop  Janes,  for  he  is  quoted  as  saying,  '  In  my  opin- 
ion it  will  not  require  a  constitutional  vote  to  alter  the 
details  of  the  plan,  as  they  will  not  be  included  in  the 
restrictive  rule.'  No  small  debate  will  spring  up  on  the 
plan  as  soon  as  it  is  settled  that  lay  delegates  can  be 
admitted.  In  fact,  the  last  General  Conference,  in  de- 
clining to  act  on  the  plan  and  sending  it  out  with 
a  two  third  vote  for  the  concurrence  of  the  Annual 
Conferences,  undoubtedly  intended  to  keep  any  modifi- 


Tiiu  Lay  Dklkgation  Movement. 


43 


cations  of  the  plan  in  its  own  future  power.  These 
modifications  can  include  every  thing  except  the  num- 
ber of  the  lay  delegates.  There  will  not,  probably,  be 
any  great  change  from  the  plan  proposed,  yet  there  may 
be  some  cleai-er  distinctions  of  non-interference  by  the 
laity  in  purely  ministerial  questions,  such  as  appeals." 

Dr.  Perrine  was  careful  to  get  his  views  also  before 
the  Church.  After  the  vote  had  been  taken  wliich  in- 
dicated that  the  priiiciple  of  lay  delegation  had  been 
indorsed  by  the  people  and  preachers,  he  wrote  a  letter 
to  the  New  York  Adoncate  (March  28,  1872),  in  which 
he  argued  very  forcibly,  by  an  examination  of  the  fig- 
ures of  the  vote,  that  the  "  plan  "  for  lay  representation 
had  not  been  indorsed,  and  further,  that  it  had  never 
been  voted  upon.    He  then  said  : 

"  The  substantial  justness  of  Bishop  Simpson's  decision 
before  the  New  Hampshire  Conference  will  be  evi- 
denced, we  think,  in  the  light  of  the  following  brief 
analysis  of  the  report  of  the  last  General  Conference 
Committee  on  Lny  Delegation.  That  rei^ort  consists  of 
a  preamble  and  three  resolutions. 

"The  first  resolution  of  the  report  contains  simply  a 
recommendation  of  a  '  plan  to  the  godly  consideration 
of  our  ministers  and  people.'  It  is  not  a  requisition 
even  to  consider  the  plan,  much  less  a  requisition  to 
vote  upon  it.  All  the  peculiar  features  of  this  plftn  are 
specified  in  the  changes  proposed  in  the  first  and  third 
answers  to  the  question,  '  Who  shall  compose  the  Gen- 
eral Conference,  and  what  are  the  regulations  and  pow- 
ers belonging  to  it  ?"  and  are  all  embodied  in  this  first 
resolution. 


44        Principles  of  Church  Government. 


"  The  second  resolution  of  the  report  contains  two 
distinct  and  unconditional  requisitions  : 

"  1.  'That  during  the  montli  of  June,  1869,  .  .  .  there 
shall  be  held  a  general  election  ...  at  wliich  all  mem- 
bers of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  .  .  .  shall  be 
invited  to  vote  by  ballot  {not  for  the  plan)  for  lay  del- 
egation or  against  lay  delegation.' 

"2.  'It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  bishops  presid- 
ing at  the  several  Annual  Conferences  ...  to  lay 
before  those  bodies  (not  '  the  plan,'  but)  the  follow- 
ing ])roposed  amendments  to  the  second  restrictive 
rule.'  " 

The  third  resolution  is  simply  a  reiteration  of  a 
fundamental  provision  of  the  constitution,  and  neither 
adds  to  nor  subtracts  from  ihe  powers  of  the  General 
Conference  in  the  case. 

"  3.  But  whether  Bishop  Simpson  was  right  or 
wrong  in  his  interpretation  this  fact  is  undisturbed  : 
So  odious  was  the  plan  to  most  parties,  for  various  and 
conflicting  reasons,  that  lay  delegation  was  carried  only 
on  the  basis  of  this  interpretation.  Can  we  in  honor 
disregard  the  implied  pledge  to  every  Conference  before 
whom  these  declarations  were  made  that  first  '  a  plan 
for  their  introduction  and  duties  must  be  enacted,  and 
then  a  vote  must  be  had  on  their  formal  admission  '  be- 
fore the  delegates  previously  elected  could  be  admitted 
witliin  the  bar  of  the  Conference.  Shall  courtesy  sup- 
plant honor?  " 

Dr.  Curry,  the  then  editor  of  the  Christian  Advo- 
cate, commenting  on  Dr.  Perrine's  article,  said  : 

"  The  '  plan '  was  simply  recommended  to  the  con- 


The  Lay  Delegation  MovKMiixx. 


45 


sideration  of  ministers  and  people.  Conceding  tlie 
necessity  of  changing  the  second  restrictive  rule  before 
lay  delegates  could  be  admitted  to  the  Genei  al  Confer- 
ence, it  was  directed  that  the  question  of  such  a  change 
should  be  submitted  to  the  several  Annual  Conferences. 
This  h:is  been  done,  and  it  is  the  only  thing  so  far  per- 
formed of  which  the  law  of  the  Church  can,  at  the 
present  stage  of  the  business,  take  any  cognizance.  The 
whole  process  of  securing  the  appointment  of  provis- 
ional lay  delegates  is  quite  outside  of  the  proper  law 
of  the  Church.  The  delegates  elected  by  the  lay  elec- 
toral conferences  are  only  provisional,  and  only  when 
it  shall  be  conceded  to  them  by  a  regular  and  legal 
process  can  they  have  any  status  in  the  General  Con- 
ference." 

Rev.  Dr.  J.  M.  Reid,  editor  of  the  North- irestera 
Christian  Advocate,  also  commented  on  Dr.  Perrine's 
article,  and  expressed  agreement  with  him  on  the  fol- 
lowing points  : 

"  1.  The  j)eopU  voted  only  on  the  principle,  and  not 
on  the  phin.  Their  ballots  were  '  for  lay  delegation ' 
and  '  against  lay  delegation.' 

"  2.  Tiie  ministers  did  not  vote  on  the  jo/a;?,  but 
solely  on  the  .alteration  of  the  restrictive  rule.  Notiiing 
else  was  ever  submitted  to  the  Conferences  by  the 
bishops.  They  were  not  authorized  to  present  any 
thing  else." 

Dr.  Perrine's  views  on  the  proper  organization  of  the 
General  Conference  under  the  new  regimen  were  farther 
expressed  in  an  article  published  subsequent  to  the 
above.    He  said  : 


46        Principles  of  Church  Government. 


"Will  j'ou  permit  me  to  speak  for  myself?  The  fol- 
lowing may  indlcatL'  my  position: 

"  1.  The  last  General  Conference  enacted  no  plan, 
not  even  provisionally.    (See  foregoing  Analy.sis.) 

"2.  It  did  not  recommend  the  enactment  of  any  plan 
by  any  party,  people.  Annual  or  General  Conferences. 
It  sim]jly  'recommended'  a  '  plan  lo  the  godly  consid- 
eraticm  of  our  ministers  and  people.' 

"3.  Marvelous  as  it  may  seem,  the  last  General  Con- 
ference did  not  even  condition  the  election  of  lay  dele- 
gates on  the  favorable  action  of  the  Annual  Confer- 
ences, as  it  had  the  clearest  constitutional  right  to  do. 
(See  Discipline,  pp.  50,51.)  It  simply  'recommended' 
such  a  method  of  appointment  to  the  'godly  considera- 
tion' of  the  Church.  Dr.  Curry  very  justly  says,  'The 
whole  process  of  securing  the  appointment  of  provisional 
lay  delegates  is  quite  outside  the  proper  law  of  the 
Church.'  This  very  remarkable  feature  of  the  Report 
on  Lay  Delegation  was  either  designed  or  it  was  not. 
If  designed,  it  was  evidently  intended  to  give  the  ensu- 
ing General  Conference  the  largest  possible  liberty  in  the 
case.  If  not  designed,  it  was  an  oversight  adequately 
illustrating  the  peculiar  merits  of  that  very  peculiar 
style  of  legislation  vrhich  drafts  overnight  a  radical 
measure  involving  the  constituent  existence  and  func- 
tions of  the  legislative  body  itself,  and  drives  it  through 
next  morning  under  the  whip  of  the  '  previous  ques- 
tion ' — not  quite  apostolical  or  Wesleyan. 

"4.  The  General  Conference  of  1868  did,  however, 
morally  and  legally,  condition  the  action  of  that  of 
1872.    But,  the  condition  being  upon  the  indorsement 


The  Lay  Delegatiox  Movement. 


47 


of  the  principle,  not  of  the  plan,  by  the  people  ('  for  or 
against  lay  delegation '),  and  upon  the  three  fourlhs 
vote  of  tiie  Annual  Conferences  for  or  against  'the 
change  of  the  restrictive  rule' — not  for  or  against  the 
plan— the  coming  General  Conference  is  not  under  the 
slightest  possible  obligation,  legal  or  moral,  in  view.of 
the  past  action  of  any  party,  to  enact  the  plan  simply 
'recommended  to  godly  consideration,'  unless  upon 
mature  deliberation  it  shall  be  found  in  their  godly 
judgment  to  be  the  best  possible  plan — the  most  com- 
patible with  those  'general  and  fundamental  principles 
of  church  government '  which  all  our  fathers  believed 
'  were  laid  down  in  the  Scriptures  ; '  the  best  adapted 
to  give  strength  and  cogency  to  the  divinely  appointed 
ministry  in  the  fulfillment  of  its  great  commission ; 
the  best  adapted  to  give  us  the  experienced  and  pecul- 
iarly developed  powers  of  our  gifted  and  devout  laity 
in  fullest  and  freest  energy  for  the  urgent  service  of  the 
Church. 

"5.  The  approaching  Gener.il  Conference  is  morally 
and  legally  bound  to  enact  some  plan  for  'the  admis- 
sion and  duties'  of  lay  delegates  whom  it  may  deem 
morally  entitled  to  seats  in  that  body.  In  view  of  the 
favorable  vote  of  the  people  for  the  principle,  and  of 
the  three  fourths  vote  of  the  Annual  Conferences  favor- 
ing the  change  of  the  restrictive  rule,  we  believe  the 
legal  'can'  complete  the  change  of  the  third  resolution 
of  the  report  is  a  moral  ought  ;  the  legal  '  may '  be  ad- 
mitted is  a  moral  must.  I  most  religiously  believe  that 
the  voice  of  God  in  his  providence  and  in  his  word,  the 
voice  of  the  people  and  of  the  ministry,  all  unite  to  call 


48 


Principles  of  Church  Government. 


our  able  and  consecrated  laity  into  the  legislative  coun- 
cils of  the  Church,  but  with  other  functions  than  to  bar 
the  action  of  the  ministry  especially  called  of  God  and 
elected  by  the  people  to  the  spiritual  supervision  of  the 
Church  of  God.  Ordered  by  the  inspired  apostles  par- 
ticularly to  the  department  of  secularities  (Acts  vi),  our 
laymen  '  of  honest  report,  full  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and 
wisdom,'  should  be  there  to  assist  especially  in  the  ad- 
ministration of  finance,  in  the  management  of  our  great 
educational  and  publishing  funds,  thus  so  relieving  the 
ministry  that  they  may  give  themselves  the  more  con- 
tinually to  things  pertaining  '  to  the  ministry  of  the 
word.'  The  inspired  men  of  the  first  century  saw 
clearly  and  declared  the  truth:  'It  is  not  reason  that 
we  should  leave  the  word  of  God,  and  serve  tables.' 

"  6.  This  legal  and  moral  '  ought '  and  '  must '  in  the 
'  can  complete  the  change '  and  '  may  be  admitted '  evi- 
dently rests  upon  the  same  party.  The  party  that 
admits  the  laymen  'completes  the  change,'  and  this 
party  is  the  ministerial  body — the  legal  General  Con- 
ference ;  and  on  them  alone  we  believe  the  word  of 
God,  the  constitution  of  the  Church,  and  the  action  of 
the  last  General  Conference  concur  in  laying  the  grave 
responsibility  of  enacting  the  status  of  the  future  Gen- 
eral Conference. 

"7.  The  clause  'can  complete  the  change'  implies 
the  change  of  the  chapter  ;  or,  in  other  words,  the  en- 
actment of  a  plan  as  the  condition  to  the  admission  of 
'lay  delegates  previously  elected.' 

"  (1.)  All  must  admit  that  the  lay  delegates  cannot 
enter  the  General  Conference  until  its  constitution, 


The  Lay  Delegation  Movement.  49 


which  from  the  beginning  has  enumerated  tlie  'regula- 
tions and  powers '  of  clerical  delegates  alone,  is  changed. 

"  (2.)  All  must  admit  that  the  constitution  of  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  is  alone  set  forth  in  the  answers  to  tlie 
question,  '  Who  shall  compose  the  General  Conference, 
and  what  are  the  regulations  and  powers  belonging 
to  it?' 

"(3.)  All  must  admit  that  the  proposed  'change  of 
the  constitution'  of  the  General  Conference  must  con- 
sist in  the  change  of  the  first  and  third  of  these  an- 
swers— and  that  this  change  of  the  constitution  can 
only  be  reached  by  the  change  of  the  second  restrictive 
rule 

"  (4.)  All  must  also  admit  that  this  change  of  the 
second  restrictive  rule  either  covers  all  the  proposed 
changes  in  the  answers  first  and  third,  or  that  it  does 
not. 

"If  it  does,  then  this  'above  constitutional  change' 
is  'compelled' — then,  the  whole  plan  is  enacted  the 
instant  the  General  Conference  by  a  two  thirds  vote 
sh^ll  have  changed  the  second  restrictive  rule  I  But 
this  supposition  is  preposterous,  and  is  antagonized  by 
the  position  of  all  parties.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  it  be 
admitted  that  the  second  restrictive  rule  does  not 
cover  all  the  proposed  changes  in  the  ansvvers  first  and 
third,  then  the  'change'  is  not  'completed' — tlien  the 
express  condition  for  the  admission  of  '  the  lay  dele- 
gates previously  elected' is  not  met.  Then  lay  dele- 
gates cannot  enter  until  a  plan  for  their  introduction 
and  duties  is  enacted. 

"For  those  who  care  less  for  invincible  logic  than  for 
4 


60        Principles  op  Chukch  Government. 


parliamentary  decorum,  we  have  tlie  following  ad  cup- 
tandum:  Imagine  our  lay  delegates  insisting  on  instant 
admission  into  a  body  constitutionally  clerical  from  the 
beginning,  that  they  '  may  assist  in  making  a  plan  ;'  in 
other  words,  changing  the  constitution  of  that  body. 
With  what  becoming  grace  could  one  of  these  dele- 
gates, already  in  the  body,  rise  and  move  the  change  of 
the  first  answer  in  the  plan — 'The  General  Conference 
shall  be  composed  of  ministerial  and  lay  delegates!' 
or  the  ministerial  and  lay  delegates,  already  sitting  to- 
gether, move  that  '  the  ministerial  and  lay  delegates 
shall  sit  and  deliberate  together  !  '  The  thought  is  so 
preposterous  that  we  very  much  doubt  that  any  lay- 
man witli  sense  and  dignity  sufficient  to  constitute  an 
efficient  legislator  in  the  Church  could  possibly  be  in- 
duced to  consent  to  occupy  for  an  instant  a  position 
so  anomalous,  not  to  say  ineffably  ridiculous.  Our  es- 
timate of  the  thorough  good  sense  of  our  '  provisional 
lay  delegates'  was  altogether  too  high  to  have  admit- 
ted even  the  thought  of  such  a  contingency,  until  we 
Baw  it  gravely  suggested  as  the  very  thing  to  be  done  ! 

"  Bishop  Simpson's  position  is  an  impregnable  one. 
'  Before  their  (the  lay  delegates)  admission  into  Gen- 
eral Conference,  not  only  must  the  rule  be  altered,  but 
a  plan  for  their  introduction  and  duties  must  be  en- 
acted ;  then  a  vote  must  be  had  on  their  formal  ad- 
mission.' 

"  8.  P^or  those  who,  with  The  Ilethodist,  think  that 
*  A  departure  from  the  plan  after  its  recommendation  (?) 
by  the  General  Conference  of  1868,  and  its  accept- 
ance (?)  by  the  Church,  would  seem  to  the  laity  to  be  a 


The  Lay  Delegation  Movement.  51 


breach  of  faith,'  we  wish  briefly  to  restate  the  case  : 
1.  The  General  Conference  never  '  recorameniled '  a 
plan— except  for  'godly  consideraiion.'  2.  Although 
not  *  before  the  people  '  or  '  before  the  preachers '  for 
their  votes,  the  plan  was  before  the  people  and  the 
Conferences  for  '  godly  consideration,'  and  tlie  Michi- 
gan Conference  so  regarded  it,  and'  simply  so  declared 
for  the  satisfaction  of  all  parties,'  for  '  in  proceeding  to 
vote  on  the  change  of  the  restrictive  rule,'  so  says  the 
report  unanimously  adopted  by  that  body,  '  the  Miclii- 
gan  Annual  Conference  puts  on  record  the  following 
declarations : 

"  (1.)  '  The  vote  we  cast  is  solely  upon  the  change  of 
the  restrictive  rule. 

"  (2.)  '  We  do  not  indorse  the  plan  proposed  by  the 
General  Conference  for  our  consideration. 

"(3-)  *    *  * 

"  (4.)  '  We  declare  ourselves  not  only  not  opposed  to, 
but  in  favor  of,  a  scheme  of  lay  delegation  which  shall 
not  interfere  with  the  divinely  designated  authority  of 
the  Christian  ministry.'  Implying,  as  strongly  as  lan- 
guage can  imply  any  thing,  that,  though  voting  for  the 
principle  of  lay  delegation  in  the  change  of  the  re- 
strictive rule,  they  did  unanimously  declare  themselves 
opposed  to  the  plan,  for  the  strongest  of  all  possible 
re.isons,  that  it  interfered  'with  the  divinely  designated 
authority  of  the  Christian  ministry.'  They  could  not 
more  utterly  have  '  condemned  '  the  plan.  They  could 
not  more  effectually  have  disposed  of  all  such  intima- 
tions of  its  '  acceptance  by  the  Church  !  !  ! '  For  the 
ninety-four  'aye'  votes  of  the  Michigan  Conference 


52 


Principles  of  Church  Goveexment. 


cast  for  the  change  of  the  resti'ictive  rule  must  be  de- 
ducted from  the  column  supposed  to  favor  the  plan ; 
and  as  the  constitutional  majority  claimed  was  but 
forty-four,  this  deduction  of  'ninety-four'  votes  will 
demonstrate  that  the  plan  could  not  have  carried  in  any 
sense  by  fifty  ministerial  votes.  And  so  generally 
odious  was  the  plan  that  it  was  only  possible,  barely 
possible,  to  carry  lay  delegation  through  the  Annual 
Conferences  by  such  an  interpretation  as  should  leave 
the  General  Conference  with  the  largest  possible  liberty 
to  follow  their  godly  judgments  in  the  construction  of 
the  plan. 

"  9.  We  most  sincerely  believe  that  a  better  thing  by 
fur  can  be  done  for  the  laity  in  the  possible  plan  : 

"  (1.)  We  may  make  the  laity  in  the  future,  in  reality, 
not  in  name,  the  representatives  of  the  people ;  not  of 
a  mere  handful  of  the  laity — the  quarterly  conference — 
which  too  often  may  be,  as  it  is  said,  '  the  mere  creat- 
ure of  the  preacher.'  The  fact  is  that  the  so-called 
'  lay  representatives,'  so  far  as  the  methods  of  appoint- 
ment are  concerned,  no  more  represent  the  people  than 
does  every  clerical  delegate  originally  elected  by  the 
same  quarterly  conference  to  a  conference  electoral 
once  in  four  years  to  the  General  Conference  !  Let  us 
widen  the  electoral  basis  of  the  possible  plan,  and  make 
every  adult  member  of  the  Church  an  elector,  with  a 
voice  in  the  choice  of  their  representatives. 

"  (2.)  Let  the  lay  representative  basis  also  be  widened. 
Why  should  the  Methodist  Church,  for  illustration,  in 
Michigan,  with  its  sixty  thousand  members,  be  repre- 
sented by  only  four  laymen,  while  its  four  hundred 


Thk  Lay  Delegation  Movement. 


53 


and  fifty  preachers  are  represented  by  thirteen  clerical 
delegates  ?  Another  vote  of  the  Annual  Conferences 
should  admit  at  least  an  equal  number  of  the  laity  and 
clei-gy  to  the  legislative  councils  of  the  Church  from 
w  ithin  the  same  bounds. 

"  (3.)  If  thought  expedient,  lay  delegates  from  every 
charge  might  be  admitted  to  the  Annual  Conferences, 
which  are  simply  executive  bodies,  and  share  in  the 
election  of  their  clerical  or  spiritual  rulers,  as  iu  the 
apostolical  and  primitive  churches  —  a  fundamental 
right  which  Methodism  has  always  theoretically  ac- 
knowledged. Our  clerical  delegates,  called  of  God  and 
elected  by  the  people,  would  then  become,  as  in  the 
apo.stolic  times,  the  *  messengers  of  the  churches  and 
the  glory  of  Christ.'  By  giving  thus  to  the  entire  adult 
laity  of  the  Church  voice  iu  the  primary  '  recommenda- 
tions' or  elections  to  the  Annual  Conferences  of  both 
clerical  and  lay  delegates,  and  to  the  clerical  and  lay 
delegates  together  in  the  Annual  Conferences  voice  in 
the  election  of  all  delegates  to  the  General  Conference, 
and  in  the  General  Conference  joint  action  in  the  elec- 
tion of  all  our  bishops,  we  shall  thus  be  prepared  for 
the  easy  adjustment  of  a  plan  which,  while  it  sliall  se- 
cure to  the  laity  the  fullest  representation  in  every 
branch  of  the  General  Conference,  shall  at  the  same 
time  save  '  the  divinely  designated  authority  of  the 
Christian  ministry,'  and  preserve  in  every  essential 
feature  the  constitution  and  polity  of  Methodism  intact. 
Tlie  plan  may  be  simply  this  :  The  organization  of  the 
General  Conference  in  three  concurrent  houses  or  de- 
partments— the  House  of  Bishops,  of  Presbyters,  and 


0  i        Principles  of  Church  Government. 

of  the  Laity  ;  the  concurrence  of  two  houses  at  least 
being  necessary  to  complete  an  action. 

"  10.  If  it  is  urged  that  'this  will  cause  unnecessary 
dehiy,'  we  will  simply  say  that  it  Avill  secure  that  '  nec- 
essary delay '  which,  in  the  judgment  of  all  modern 
founders  of  free  States,  is  the  great  desideratum  in  leg- 
islation— to  be  best  secured  by  the  division  of  the  legis- 
lative body  at  least  into  two  branches. 

"  And  in  proof  of  the  demand  for  delay  in  Method- 
ist legislation,  we  simply  point  to  the  appropriate 
monument  of  May  29,  1868 — to  a  confused  mass  of  'in- 
terpretations of  the  plan,'  heaped  not  quite  to  heaven, 
and  capped  with  this  fact — that  lay  delegation  has 
providentially  carried,  despite  the  very  condition  on 
which  in  the  impetuous  rush  of  that  most  remarkable 
day  tlie  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  suspended  it  ;  for,  as  we  have  demonstrated,  the 
'  above  proposed  change  in  the  -constitution  of  the 
Church  '  refers  not  only  to  the  change  of  the  restrictive 
rule  which  was  submitted  to  vote  of  the  Annual  Con- 
ferences, but  especially  to  the  answers  of  the  question, 
'  Wlio  shall  compose  the  General  Conference,  and  what 
are  the  regulations  and  powers  belonging  to  it?'  which 
all  agree  Avas  never  submitted  to  the  vote  of  either 
preacher  or  people  !  The  stable  provision  of  the  con- 
stitution alone — not  the  '  third  resolution '  of  a  popular 
tempest — saved  the  cause. 

"  11.  For  the  benefit  of  those  wlio  may  be  meditat- 
ing the  inauguration  of  a  similar  furore  for  the  enact- 
ment of  that  same  plan,  we  beg  leave  to  quote  llie 
words  of  one  of  the  founders  of  the  Republic,  written 


TiiK  Lay  Dklegatiox  Movement. 


55 


at  the  time  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  was 
before  the  States  for  their  adoption  or  rejection  : 

"  '  It  is  a  misfortune,'  says  James  Madison,  '  insepa- 
rable from  liuman  affairs  that  public  measures  are  rarely 
iiivestigaied  with  that  spirit  of  moderation  which  is  es- 
sential to  a  just  estimate  of  their  real  tendency  to  ad- 
vance or  obstruct  the  public  good,  and  that  this  spirit 
is  more  apt  to  be  diminished  than  promoted  by  those 
very  occasions  which  require  an  unusual  exercise  of  it.'  * 

"The  fathers  of  the  Republic  weie  men  fully  con- 
scious of  the  dignity  of  their  mission.  They  gave  time, 
study,  and  devotion  to  their  great  work.  And  as  the 
result  not  only  of  their  wise  distribution  of  the  various 
powers  of  government,  but  especially  by  the  division  of 
the  legislative  department  into  two  houses,  with  their 
admirable  adjustments,  they  have  given  us  in  our  na- 
tional and  State  Legislatures  the  model  deliberative 
assemblies  of  the  world.  As  the  radical  tide  is  just 
now  setting  with  fearful  power  in  upon  the  Church, 
threatening  to  sweep  away  every  landmark  of  the  polity 
of  our  fathers,  how  imperative  it  is  that  the  coming 
General  Conference,  '  whom  God  hath  so  strangely  set 
free'  from  the  plan,  should  build  up  for  our  safety 
against  all  the  perils  of  the  future  the  dikes  of  a  great 
and  efficient  system — one  that  shall  combine  freedom 
with  power  ;  that  shall  at  the  same  time  inspire  the 
whole  body  of  the  laity  with  zeal  and  add  momentum 
to  the  most  energetic  of  ministries.  The  time  is  not 
distant  when,  doubtless,  there  shall  come  before  this 
great  legislative  body  of  Methodism  interests  of  far 
*  Rderalist,  p.  282. 


56        Principles  of  Church  Governme.vt. 


greater  moment  than  have  over  agitated  the  political 
congresses  and  parliaments  of  the  nations.  Methodism 
is  to  take  the  world  lor  Jesus.  The  Western  says  : 
'  The  OL'casion  is  grand — the  work  is  momentous.'  We 
believe  it.  All  other  business  of  the  coming  session — 
Book  Con(;ern,  colored  bishops,  the  '  woman  question,' 
etc.,  etc. — all  dwindle  into  utter  iiusigniticance  before 
this  stupendous  work  of  organization,  that,  like  another 
Mont  Blanc,  may  lift  its  summit  into  the  clear  light  of 
the  centuries  to  come.  W.  H.  Peruixe." 

Bishop  Ames  entertained  similar  views  respecting 
the  proposed  "  plan."  The  N<>rth-ivcstf:rn.  CliriiftUin  Ad- 
vocate obtained  and  published  from  Dr.  E.  O.  Haven, 
chairman  of  the  General  Conference  committee  on  the 
subject,  a  proposition  made  to  the  committee  by  Bishop 
Ames,  in  writing,  which  he  recommended  as  a  suitable 
plan  to  be  adopted.  The  discussion  liad  then  pro- 
ceeded so  far  that  it  was  not  deemed  advisable  by  the 
committee  to  change  this  report,  and  the  report  of  the 
"  committee  of  conference  "  on  the  subject  effectually 
prevented  this  plan  proposed  by  Bishop  Ames  from 
coming  before  the  General  Conference.  "  We  greatly 
regretted  at  the  time,"  says  the  Xorth-viestern,  "  that 
the  General  Conference  did  not  take  tim-;  to  weigh  this 
proposition  of  one  of  the  wisest  of  our  chief  pastors. 
It  had,  to  many  minds,  some  startling  aspects.  It  was 
a  proposition  to  give  concurrent  powers  to  a  house  of 
lay  delegates  in  making  all  our  rules  and  regulations, 
and  in  all  elections,  except  only  such  as  relate  to  minis- 
terial administration  and  character.    This  change  was 


The  Lay  Delegation  Movement, 


57 


to  be  made  at  once,  and  without  a  change  of  general 
rule." 

The  plan,  in  detail,  was  to  add  to  Chapter  I,  on  the 
"  Government  of  the  Church,"  another  section,  as  fol- 
lows.   "We  now  quote  from  Bisliop  Ames  : 

"SECTION  11. 
"of  the  house  of  lay  delegates. 

"  Question  1.  Who  shall  com])ose  the  house  of  lay 
delegates?  and  what  are  the  regulations  and  powers 
belonging  to  it  ? 

Answer  1.  The  house  of  lay  delegates  shall  be  com- 
posed of  so  many  stewards  from  within  the  bounds  of 
each  Annual  Conference  as  the  conference  has  minis- 
terial delegates  to  tl)e  General  Conference;  yet  so  tliat 
the  delegates  thus  chosen  sliall  have  filled  the  otiice  of 
steward  at  lenst  four  full  calendar  years. 

"  Ans.  2.  The  house  of  lay  delegates  shall  meet  on  the 
first  daj''  of  May,  1872,  and  thenceforward  on  the  fii-st 
day  of  May,  once  in  four  years  perpetually,  in  such 
places  as  shall  be  fixed  only  by  the  concurrent  vote  of 
the  house  of  lay  delegates  and  of  the  General  Con- 
ference, 

"  Ans.  .3.  At  all  times  when  tlie  house  of  lay  dele- 
gates is  met,  it  shall  take  two  thirds  to  form  a  quorum 
for  the  transaction  of  business. 

"  Ans.  4.  One  of  the  general  superintendents  shall 
preside. 

"  Ans.  5.  The  house  of  lay  delegates  shall  have  con- 
current authority  in  making  rules  and  regulations  for 
our  Church,  and  in  the  election  of  bishops,  and  of  all 


58 


PkINCIPLES  of  CuuRCII  GoVEUXMEIfT. 


officers  to  be  chosen;  and  in  all  other  matters  excejit 
such  as  relate  to  ministerial  administration  and  char- 
acter. Measures  may  be  originated  either  in  the  house 
of  lay  delegates  or  in  the  General  Conference. 

"  Question  2.  Hom'  shall  the  lay  delegates  be  chosen  ? 

"  Ausicer  1.  There  shall  be  a  quadrennial  confer- 
ence, composed  of  one  steward  from  each  pastoral 
charge,  to  be  chosen  by  the  third  quarterly  conference 
of  the  year  preceding  the  session  of  the  General  Con- 
ference. The  members  of  the  quadrennial  conference 
thus  chosen  shall  fix  the  time  and  place  of  their 
meeting,  and  when  organized  shall  proceed  to  elect, 
by  ballot,  from  among  the  members  of  their  own 
body,  as  many  delegates  to  the  house  of  lay  dele- 
gates as  the  Annual  Conference  is  entitled  to  have  in 
the  General  Conference.  The  quadrennial  conferences 
shall  provide  for  the  expenses  of  the  house  of  lay 
delegates." 

A  great  many  other  "  plans"  were  submitted  and  dis- 
cussed in  the  newspapers  of  the  period,  all  tending  to 
show  that  the  ministers  and  laymen  generally  diil  not 
especially  favor  the  particular  plan  proposed,  nor  think 
that  the  General  Conference  of  1872  was  under  the 
s.ightest  obligation  to  adopt  it.  But  it  had  its  sworn 
friends,  as  the  sequel  will  show. 

On  the  first  day  of  the  General  Conference  of  1872, 
after  the  organization  of  the  conference  had  been 
effected.  Bishop  Janes  stated  that  tlie  bishops  were 
ready  to  report  the  vote  of  tlie  several  conferences  on 
the  change  of  the  second  restrictive  rule,  providing  for 
the  introduction  of  lay  delegates  into  the  General  Con- 


The  Lay  Delegatiox  ^Iovement.  59 


ference ;  whereupon,  at  the  request  of  the  conference, 
Bishop  Simpson  presented  the  following  : 

"  Dear  Brethren  :  The  last  General  Conference 
devised  a  plan  for  lay  delegation,  which  they  recora- 
mended  to  the  godly  consideration  of  our  ministers  and 
people.  Ill  connection  with  this  plan  [italics  ours]  they 
directed  the  bishops  to  lay  before  the  several  Annual 
Conferences  a  proposed  alteration  of  the  second  re- 
strictive rule,  and  to  report  the  result  of  the  vote 
thereon  to  this  General  Conference. 

"  In  compliance  with  said  action,  we  laid  before  each 
of  the  Annual  Conferences  the  proposition  to  alter  the 
second  restrictive  rule,  by  adding  thereto  the  word 
'  ministerial '  after  the  word  '  one,'  and  after  the  word 
'forty-five '  the  words  '  nor  more  than  two  lay  delegates 
for  any  Annual  Conference.'  Each  conference  voted 
on  said  proposition,  and  the  aggregate  result  is  as  fol- 
lows : 

For  tlie  proposed  cliange   4.915 

Against  the  pioposcd  change   1.507 

Blank   4 

"In  behalf  of  the  bishops,  M.  Snipsox." 

After  this  report  Avas  read  the  following  ])aper, 
signed  by  J.  T.  Peck,  W.  L.  Harris,  R.  S.  Foster,  G. 
Haven,  and  T.  M.  Eddy,  was  submitted  and  read : 

"  Whereas,  The  General  Conference,  at  its  session  in 
Chicago  in  1S68,  devised  a  plan  for  the  admission  of 
lay  delegates  as  members  of  said  General  Conference, 
and  recommended  it  to  the  godly  consideration  of  our 
ministers  and  jienple  ;  and. 


Pkincipi.es  of  Church  GovjjRXMiiNX. 


"  Mlwreas,  A  large  majority  of  the  members  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  present  and  voting  in  ac- 
cordance toilh  the  })rovisi<ins  of  said  plan  [italics  ours] 
voted  in  favor  of  lay  delegation  ;  and, 

"  Whereas,  Three  fourths  of  the  members  of  the  An- 
nual Cotifc-rences  voted  in  favor  of  the  change  of  the 
restrictive  rules  proposed  in  said  plan,  for  the  purpose 
of  making  it  lawful  to  admit  to  the  General  Confer- 
ence lay  delegates  in  accordance  with  said  2jlan  [italics 
ours];  therefore, 

"Hesolced,  1.  By  the  delegates  of  the  several  Annual 
Conferences  in  General  Conference  assembled,  that  the 
change  in  the  restrictive  rules  submitted  by  the  Gen- 
eral Conference,  and  adopted  by  the  required  three 
fourths  of  the  membo'S  of  the  Annual  Conferences  vot- 
ing thereon  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  said 
plan,  in  the  words  i'ollowing,  to  wit  (see  Plan),  be  and 
hereby  is  adopted. 

"  Resolved,  2.  Tliat  said  plnn  is  hereby  ratified  and 
adopted,  and  declared  to  be  in  full  force,  and  the  lay 
delegates  elected  under  it  are  hereby  invited  to  take 
their  seats  as  members  of  the  General  Conference  of 
the  Methodi<t  Episcopal  Church,  on  their  credentials 
now  in  the  hands  of  the  secretary." 

We  sliall  not  attempt  to  describe  the  scene,  far  less 
record  tlie  resolutions  offered  and  speeches  made,  which 
followed  this  adroitly  woi'ded  paper.  The  haste  and 
excicement,  the  indisposition  to  hear  the  remarks  of  any 
opponent  of  the  "  plan,"  were  not  creditable  to  a  body 
of  Christian  ministers  called  to  deliberate  upon  the 
weighty  matters  of  the  Church. 


TuK  Lay  Delegation  Movement.  61 


Finally,  on  motion  of  W.  F.  Cowles,  the  Conference 
ordered  a  division  of  the  matter  pending,  so  that  the 
vote  could  first  be  taken  on  the  proposed  change  of  the 
second  restrictive  rule,  as  follows  : 

"  Resolved,  That  this  General  Conference  does  hereby 
concur  with  the  Annual  Conferences  in  changing  the 
second  restrictive  rule  so  as  to  read  as  follows  : 

"They  shall  not  allow  of  more  than  one  ministerial 
representative  for  every  fourteen  members  of  an  Annual 
Conference,  nor  allow  of  less  than  one  for  every  forty- 
five,  nor  more  than  two  lay  delegates  for  any  Annual 
Conference." 

The  ayes  and  nays  having  been  ordered,  on  calling 
the  roll  it  was  found  that  283  had  voted  in  the  affirma- 
tive. Dr.  Perriiie  among  the  number,  and  that  six  had 
voted  in  the  negative.  Three  were  absent  or  failed  to 
vote.    The  resolution  was  therefore  adopted. 

On  the  motion  wliich  then  followed,  to  vote  on  so 
much  of  the  pending  resolution  as  ratified  and  adopted 
the  plan,  the  jjrevious  question  be'uirj  called  for,  it  was 
found  that  252  voted  in  the  affirmative  and  36  in  the 
negative.  Dr.  Perrine  among  the  latter.  Motion,  of 
course,  adopted. 

On  the  next  motion,  that  the  roll  of  laymen  be  called 
and  that  they  be  admitted  to  seats  in  the  General  Con- 
ference to  deliberate  together  with  the  ministers  as  one 
body,  288  voted  in  the  affirmative  and  one — Dr.  Perrine 
— voted  No!  So  the  motion  prevailed,  and  lay  delega- 
tion as  it  now  stands  was  an  accomplished  fact  in  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

But  it  w-as  not  long  before  the  plan  was  subjected  to 


62 


Principles  of  Church  Government. 


a  practical  test,  and  the  outcome  was  any  thing  but 
pleasing  to  its  friends. 

On  the  morning  of  May  21a  lay  delegate  moved  that 
the  laymen  demand  a  separate  vote  in  the  election  of 
bisliops.  Pending  discussion  of  the  question  by  the 
laymen,  the  point  was  raised  that  on  a  call  for  the  sep- 
arate vote  of  the  two  orders  discussion  was  out  of  or- 
der. Tlie  chairman  decided  the  point  to  be  well  taken, 
whereupon  an  appeal  to  the  Conference  was  taken,  but 
the  ruling  was  sustained.  The  laymen,  therefore,  were 
denied  discussion  of  their  own  motion. 

Before  the  day's  session  closed  the  following  protest 
was  read  and  entered  on  the  Journal : 

"  Protest. 
"General  Conference  Room,  May  21,  1872. 

"To  THE  General  Conference:  We,  lay  delegates, 
who  thought  it  right  to  record  our  names  for  a  separate 
vote  of  the  two  orders  in  the  election  of  bishops,  re- 
spectfully protest  against  the  proceedings  this  morning 
by  which  we  were  placed  in  a  false  light.  After  one 
speech  for  the  movement  and  two  speeches  against  it, 
we  were  required  to  vote  in  silence,  and  not  allowed  a 
word  of  explanation. 

"  We  further  protest  against  our  votes  being  regarded 
as  in  any  sense  hostile  or  antagonistic  to  our  ministers, 
and  we  challenge  those  who  voted  against  us  to  a  con- 
test in  our  love  and  esteem  for  them."  Signed  by  John 
Evans  and  twenty-two  others.* 

A  day  or  two  further  on  (May  2.3)  Rev.  I.  Corwin 

*  Journal,  1872,  pp.  291,  299. 


The  Lay  Delegation  Movement. 


63 


presented  the  following  resolution,  which  was  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  Itinerancy: 

Jiesolved,  That  answer  3  to  question  1,  Chapter  I, 
of  Part  II  of  Discipline  be,  and  the  same  is  hereby,  al- 
tered so  that  it  shall  read  as  follows: 

"  Answer  3.  At  all  times  when  the  General  Confer- 
ence is  met  it  shall  take  two  thirds  of  the  whole  num- 
ber of  ministerial  and  lay  delegates  to  form  a  quorum 
for  transacting  business.  The  ministerial  and  lay  dele- 
gates t^hall  sit  and  deliberate  together  as  one  body,  but 
on  any  proposition  to  make,  alter,  or  amend  any  rule 
or  regulation  of  the  Discipline  they  shall  vote  separately 
■whenever  such  separate  vote  shall  be  demanded  by  mie 
third  of  the  members  present  of  either  order,  in  which 
case  the  concurrent  vote  of  both  orders  shall  be  neces- 
sary to  complete  the  action." 

Of  course  this  resolution  stirred  up  the  laymen.  It 
was  in  their  judgment  a  stealthy  blow  at  their  rights 
under  the  plan.  A  call  was  circulated  for  a  meeting 
in  the  lecture-room  of  "Washington  Street  Church  to 
consider  Avhat  action  should  be  taken  in  the  premises. 
The  call  was  signed  by  Chancellor  Bates,  of  Delaware, 
Colonel  Thompson,  of  Indiana,  and  Judge  Goodrich,  of 
Rock  River. 

According  to  the  reports  of  the  meeting  which  ap- 
peared at  the  time,  about  sixty  lay  delegates  Avere  pres- 
ent. Previous  to  organizing.  Colonel  Thomp!^on  sug- 
gested that  the  gentlemen  present  furnish  their  names 
and  addresses  for  publication,  so  that  they  might  know 
something  of  each  other. 

The  meeting  then  organized  by  the  election  of  ex-Sen- 


6i        Principles  of  Church  Government. 


ator  Lane,  of  Indiana,  chairman,  Mr.  Bonner,  St.  Louis, 
tit'cretary,  and  Gem.-ral  Albright,  of  Philadelphia,  assist, 
ant  secretary.  Colonel  Thompson  suggested  that  Gov. 
Evans,  of  Colorado,  state  the  object  of  the  meetino-. 

Gov.  Evans  said  that  a  measure  had  been  introduced 
into  the  General  Conference  that  morning  very  seriously 
affecting  the  interests  of  the  constituencies  who  had  sent 
Liy  delegates  to  that  Conference.  They  all  knew  that 
a  separate  vote  for  each  order,  when  demanded,  had 
been  decided  upon  at  Chicago  as  a  substitute  for  equal 
representation.  Equal  representation  had  been  found 
to  be  impracticable,  though  the  preachers  were  in  favor 
of  it.  Even  reducing  the  number  of  clerical  represen- 
tatives as  low  as  it  could  be  under  the  organic  law  of 
the  Church — one  to  forty-five — the  General  Conference 
would  then  be  too  numerous  a  body  with  equal  repre- 
sentation. A  separate  vote  was  therefore  granted  the 
laity  as  an  equivalent  for  equal  representation.  It  was 
now  proposed  to  take  that  from  them,  except  on  ques- 
tions »f  discipline.  Questions  of  discipline  the  majority 
of  them  would  be  willing  to  leave  to  the  ministers, 
but  there  were  other  grave  and  important  interests  in 
■which  the  laity  desired  to  exercise  their  right  of  a 
separate  vote.  Even  with  a  separate  vote  the  laymen 
cannot  elect  a  man  who  has  not  a  minority  of  the  min- 
isters, but  now  the  laymen  and  a  minority  of  the  clergy 
could  elect  a  man  distasteful  to  the  clergy. 

Mr.  Amos  Shinkle,  of  Kentucky,  differed  with  Gov. 
Evans,  and  regretted  that  the  meeting  had  been  called 
to  discuss  questions  which  should  have  been  decided 
in  the  Conference,  and  nowhere  else.    The  laity  had 


The  Lay  Dkleg.vtiox  Movement. 


65 


already  received  more  privileges  than  they  could  have 
reasonably  expected — for  instance,  in  being  admitted 
to  the  Committee  on  Appeals.  It  was, unfortunate  that 
the  meeting  had  been  called.  Sixty-one  laymen  could 
tie  the  hands  of  any  man,  even  if  three  hundred  men 
might  vote  for  liim.  Wits  it  right  that  sixty-one  men 
should  control  the  General  Conference  f  He  should  vote 
against  it  now,  there,  andevery-where.  He  would  vote 
for  the  change  proj)osed  that  morning,  and  was  even 
willing  to  go  further  and  vote  that  the  right  to  call  be 
stricken  out. 

Judge  McCalmont,  of  Erie,  said  that  the  two  lay 
representatives  from  a  Conference  should  represent  just 
exactly  their  constituency,  as  the  seven  or  the  nine  min- 
isters from  a  Conference.  Were  one  hundre<l  and  forty 
laymen  to  be  overruled  by  the  clerical  delegates? 

The  Hon.  Hiram  Price,  of  Iowa,  said  that  for  many 
years  it  had  been  tlirown  as  a  reproach  to  the  Method- 
ist Church  in  the  United  States  that  they  were  priest- 
ridden  and  overruled  by  preachers.  The  General  Con- 
ference four  years  ago  made  a  law  that  the  laymen 
should  have  an  equal  voice  in  the  councils  of  the 
Church.  Under  the  principle  laid  down  in  the  plan 
they  had  an  equal  voice.  Change  the  plan,  and  they 
will  have  no  representation  in  fact  at  all. 

Mr.  Comstock,  of  New  York,  thouglit  the  right  to  a 
separate  vote  should  be  exercised  only  in  extraordinary 
cases.  He  did  not  think  it  should  be  exercised  in  the 
minor  matter  of  electing  officers. 

Mr.  Bruehl,  Central  German,  condemned  the  action 
of  those  brethren  who  were  throwing  a  fire-brand  into 


66 


Principles  op  Church  Government. 


the  Conference.  He  thought  matters  should  be  left  to 
tlie  ministers. 

Colonel  Thompson,  of  Indiana,  thought  that  an  of- 
ficial elected  by  concurrent  vote  would  be  more  accept- 
al)le  to  the  people  than  one  elected  by  the  joint  vote 
of  clergy  and  laity.  He  did  not  expect,  when  the  first 
opportunity  presented  itself  for  putting  into  operation 
the  adopted  method  of  equal  representation  that  their 
ministerial  brethren  would  charge  them  with  antago- 
nism. If  that  is  Christian,  then  the  system  is  un- 
christian. The  system  is  attacked  to-day.  What  are 
you  going  to  do  about  it?  I  will  get  down  on  my 
knees  and  pray  before  Almighty  God  for  every  preacher 
in  that  congregation  that  will  get  mad  at  that  Disci- 
pline. I  want  a  separate  vote  retained  in  that  Discipline 
till  we  see  whether  it  works  badly  or  well. 

Judge  Groo,  of  New  York,  did  not  think  that  the 
General  Conference  in  Chicago  intended  equal  represen- 
tation by  the  plan  of  lay  delegation  adopted,  but  he 
hoi)ed  to  live  to  see  the  day  wlien  they  would  have 
man  for  man  in  the  General  Conference.  As,  however, 
the  plan  adopted  gave  the  laity  certain  rights,  he  was 
in  favor,  for  one,  whenever  it  Avas  proposed  to  infringe 
on  those  rights,  to  have  a  separate  vote,  and  vote  it 
down  every  time. 

Gov.  Evans  offered  a  resolution  declaring  it  to  be  the 
sense  of  the  meeting  that  the  plan  for  lay  delegation 
should  not  be  changed  for  the  next  four  years. 

L.  J.  Critchfield,  of  Ohio,  moved,  as  a  substitute,  the 
following: 

"  Wherem,  In  the  present  plan  of  lay  delegation,  the 


The  Lay  Delegation  Movement.  67 


riglit  to  vote  by  separate  orders  was,  so  far  as  regards 
lay  representation,  intended  as  a  compensation  for  the 
inequality  in  numbers  between  ministerial  and  lay  del- 
egates; therefore, 

"  Resoloed,  That  we  are  opposed  to  any  change  of  the 
Discipline  that  will  limit  or  qualify  the  present  right  of 
the  lay  delegates  to  a  vote  by  separate  orders,  while  the 
inequality  in  numbers  between  ministerial  and  lay  dele- 
gates exists;  and  that  we  will  call  for  a  vote  by  orders  on 
any  proposeci  change  of  the  Discipline  upon  tliis  subject." 

This  substitute  was  accepted  by  Gov.  Evans. 

Mr.  Critchheld  said  he  thought  that  the  ministers 
who  lost  their  temper  when  a  separate  vote  was  asked 
for  were  wrong. 

Colonel  Thompson  said,  "  We  didn't  get  mad  when  it 
was  voted  down." 

Judge  Reynolds,  of  New  York,  said  that  there  was 
the  plan  upon  which  lay  delegation  was  founded,  one 
of  the  laws  of  the  Church.  It  was  adopted  after  ma- 
ture discussion  in  the  Conference  of  1868  ;  it  traveled 
around  all  the  Conferences,  and  received  about  two 
thirds  of  the  clerical  votes  and  received  about  two 
thirds  of  the  votes  of  the  laity  voting  upon  it.  He 
supposed  it  meant  what  it  said,  that  the  laity  had  the 
right  to  call  for  a  separate  vote  at  any  time  on  any  oc- 
casion; not  only  on  changes  in  the  Discipline,  but  in  the 
minor  matter,  as  a  brother  chose  to  call  it,  of  electing 
officers.  It  was  neither  incredible  nor  unprecedented 
that  unworthy  men  should  creep  into  office  in  the 
Church,  and  it  would  be  better  that  every  man  who 
Bought  high  office  in  the  Church  should  have  to  go 


68 


Principles  of  Church  Government. 


through  two  sieves  instead  of  one.  There  was  no 
ground  for  alarm  in  the  minds  of  the  ministry.  It  was 
rather  strange  that,  when  they  had  deliberately  and  with 
consideration  given  the  laity  certain  power,  the  very 
first  occasion  that  the  laity  proposed  to  exercise  that 
power  the  clergy  should  be  seized  with  such  excitement 
and  trembling  that  the  very  next  day  a  proposition  was 
brought  in  to  abolish  it.  Suppose  that  the  laity  them- 
selves elected  under  that  plan  should  concur !  When 
the  call  was  asked  for,  some  of  the  laity  were  so  fright- 
ened by  the  excitement  of  their  brother  ministers  that 
they  consented  to  waive  a  right  given  them  by  the 
clergy  of  the  Conference  four  years  ago.  He  hoped 
they  would  have  the  moral  courage  on  proper  occasions 
to  exercise  that  right,  and  that  it  would  never  be  ex- 
ercised on  an  improper  occasion. 

Judge  Hubbard,  of  East  Genesee,  said  the  right  of 
separate  vote  was  a  conservative  power  and  not  a  fire- 
brand. If  tlie  ministers  cannot  allow  us  to  use  the  con- 
stitutional powers  they  have  given  us,  it  seems  to  me 
they  ought  to  pray  for  more  grace.  The  only  trouble 
is  a  lack  of  grace.  Among  the  laity  people  have  all  the 
powers  that  belong  to  them,  and  when  they  acquire  as 
much  grace  as  an  ordinary  civilian  there  will  be  no  dif- 
ference about  the  matter. 

Chancellor  Bates,  of  Delaware,  reasoned  against 
changing  tlie  plan  at  that  session. 

General  Patton,  of  Pennsylvania,  said  that  he  be- 
lieved what  Bishop  Scott  had  said  that  day — that  he  did 
not  think  that  a  corporal's  guard  of  preachers  would 
vote  to  take  the  right  of  the  laymen  away. 


The  Lay  Delegation  Movement.  69 


Colonel  Thompson:  "Let  us  separate,  and  then  Ave 
will  find  out." 

Judge  Corwin,  of  Ohio,  said  that  upon  exami- 
nation he  had  become  satisfied  that  the  laity  had 
a  right  to  call  for  a  separate  vote  in  questions  of 
election. 

Mr.  W.  R.  Woodward,  of  Baltimore,  and  Mr.  D.  X. 
Cooley,  of  Iowa,  spoke  in  defense  of  the  rights  of  the 
laymen.  "J^he  latter  said,  "  Let  us  do  right,  though  the 
heavens  fall  ! " 

Mr.  Oliver  Hoyt,  of  New  York,  said  he  for  one  would 
go  to  his  home  in  shame  were  the  laity  to  allow  the  sys- 
tem to  be  changed  in  that  General  Conference.  It 
would  put  them  in  a  position  they  could  not  submit  to. 
He  believed  they  would  not  submit  to  it. 

Judge  Goodrich  thought  the  separate  vote  power 
should  only  be  exercised  on  extraordinary  occasions. 
He  looked  on  it  as  a  veto  power. 

General  Albriglit  said  it  was  a  legislative  power. 

Action  was  then  taken  on  the  Critclifield  resolution, 
which  carried  by  thirty-nine  in  the  affirmative  to  six  in 
the  negative.    The  meeting  adjourned. 

Dr.  Perrine  noted  very  carefully  all  of  these  published 
sentiments  of  the  laymen,  and  so  far  as  they  related  to 
the  rights  and  propriety  of  a  separate  vote  under  the 
plan  he  was  in  entire  sympathy  with  them.  We  find  in 
his  memorandum  book  for  that  session  of  the  General 
Conference  an  outline  speech  which  runs  as  follows: 

"Mr.  President:  I  wish  to  second  this  call  for  a  sep- 
arate vote  of  the  laymen  for  the  following  reasons: 

"1.  It  is  clearly  their  constitutional  right.    Tills  call 


70        Principles  op  Church  Goveuxment. 


for  <i  division  of  the  house  is  grounded  in  the  organic 
law.  This  fundamental  right  of  antagonism  is  insepa- 
rate,  incarnate  in  the  plan.  This  schism  is  constitu- 
tionally in  the  body. 

"  2.  I  am  in  favor  of  the  call  for  the  reason  that  evei-y 
call  for  this  separate  vote  will  make  more  and  more 
evident  the  fact  tliat  this  principle  of  antagonism  is 
found  in  the  plan  in  its  most  objectionable  form.  Tlie 
constitution  of  the  Episcopal  Convention  makes  it  the 
DUTY  of  the  laymen  to  vote  separately,  as  also  the  duty 
of  the  clergy  to  vote  separately;  so  that  a  separate 
vote  awakens  no  suspicion.  But  with  us,  as  tlie  call  for 
a  separate  vote  is  optional  with  one  third  of  either  or- 
der in  ihe  quorum,  very  naturally,  necessarily,  tiie 
thought  is  instantly  suggested  in  the  minds  of  the  op- 
posing order  that  there  must  be  a  covert  reason,  some 
hidden  purpose,  some  sinister  motive,  some  selfish  end; 
and  so,  suspicion,  mistrust,  jealousy,  iind  heart-burnings 
are  the  inevitable  outgrowth  of  the  unchristian  i)rin- 
ciple  incorporate  in  the  plan.  O  how  different  from 
the  spiritual  organism,  the  moral  selfhood,  of  the  Church 
of  Jesus  Christ,  where  the  whole  body,  fitly  framed  to- 
gether and  compacted  by  that  which  every  joint  sup- 
plieth,  groweth  into  a  holy  temple  in  the  Lord  ! 

"  3.  I  am  in  favor  of  these  separate  calls  because  they 
will  make  manifest  the  sooner  the  unwise  and  undemo- 
cratic features  of  the  '  plan ' — a  minority  in  a  popular 
assembly  barring  a  majority.  This  is  the  quintessence 
of  all  absurdity  in  legislation — the  perfection  of  all 
democratic  shams,  and  yet  this  is  called  'equal  repre- 
sentation.' 


Tuii  LvY  Dklegation  Movement. 


71 


"  4.  I  am  in  favor  of  this  call,  for  it  may  open  the 
eyes  of  some  to  the  amazing  fact  that  under  the  present 
'plan'  a  lay  pope  is  possible  in  Methodism.* 

"  5.  I  favor  this  call  because  it  will  evidence  more  and 
more  fully  every  time  it  is  made  the  folly  of  inaugurat- 
ing a  revolution  in  a  popular  body.  When  I  stood  here 
alone  on  the  first  of  May  endeavoring  to  stem  the  tide, 
I  was  thought  demented  when  I  demanded  in  the  name 
of  the  laity,  at  the  doors  of  this  body,  the  fullest  discus- 
sion, the  calmest  deliberation  in  such  a  change.  And 
yet  the  laity  are  the  very  first  to  cry  out  against  this 
dangerous  spirit  of  antagonism.  And  again,  when  I 
demanded  in  the  name  of  the  entire  ministry  of  the 
Church  that  the  plan  be  tliorouglily  discussed  before  it 
should  be  enacted,  I  was  thought  to  be  a  fit  subject  for 
bedlam;  but,  sir,  the  single  call  for  a  separate  vote  on 
Tuesday  last  extorted  expressions  from  the  lips  of  those 
who  voted  'aye'  on  the  plan  as  innocently  and  as 
thoughtlessly  as  a  flock  of  lambs  would  skip  the  bars 
into  a  slaughter  pen.  The  echoes  may  not  have  reached 
as  far  as  the  bishop's  chair,  but  I  heard  the  words 
*  revolution,' '  secession,' '  a  disrupted  Church,'  etc.,  hissed 
through  close-set  teeth,  and  they  came  from  the  lips  of 
ministers  who,  on  the  first  of  May,  laid  down  at  the  feet 
of  laymen  the  solemn  trusts  committed  to  them  by  the 
great  Head  of  the  Church.  If  these  things  be  done  in 
a  green  tree,  what  shall  be  done  in  a  dry?" 

Dr.  Perrine's  fears  respecting  the  revolutionary  ten- 
dency of  the  separate  vote  power  have  not  been  fully  real- 
ized up  to  this  date,  but  it  is  probably  true  that  the  call 
*  See  page  167. 


72 


Peinciples  of  Church  Government. 


for  a  separate  vote  has  never  been  made  without  excit- 
ing more  or  h'ss  of  the  suspicion,  mistrust,  and  jealousy 
to  whirl)  lie  referred. 

Many  sei  ious  objections  to  other  features  of  the  pres- 
ent plan  of  lay  representation  have  appeared  in  various 
quarters.    In  March,  187o,  the  Relifjioits  Telescope  said: 

"  Let  us  examine  lay  representation  as  instituted  in 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  Its  General  Confer- 
ences will  hereafter  be  composed  of  a  minority  of  lay- 
men. But  these  laymen  are  chosen  by  an  electoral  col- 
lege which  is  elected  by  the  quarterly  conferences; 
and  these  quarterly  conferences  are  largely  composed 
of  the  appointees  and  nominees  of  the  preacher  in 
charge,  as  he  is  also  an  appointee  at  the  absohite  dis- 
cretion of  the  bishop  presiding  at  the  Annual  Confer- 
ence. The  stewards  and  trustees,  composing  a  large 
part  of  the  membership  of  those  quarterly  conferences, 
though  elected  by  the  Conference  itself,  are  all  the 
nominees  of  the  itinerants;  and  the  class-leaders  are 
the  direct  appointees  of  the  preacher  in  charge.  So 
from  the  foregoing  it  appears  that  while  laymen  com- 
pose the  electoral  college  that  chooses  lay  delegates  to 
the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  the  laymen  of  the  quarterly'  conferences  are 
mainly  the  appointees  and  nominees  of  the  itinerant 
j)reachers.  So  that  while  that  Church  has  a  good  por- 
tion of  lay  delegates  in  its  General  Conference,  it  has 
little  or  nothing  of  lay  representation  in  the  true  sense 
of  that  term.  The  great  body  of  the  people  of  the 
JVIethodist  Episcopal  Church  have  almost  no  voice  at  all 
in  the  selection  of  those  who  compose  the  quarterly. 


The  Lay  Delegation  Moveme.vt. 


73 


Annual,  or  General  Conferences  of  that  denomination. 
Those  delegates  are  the  i-epresentatives  of  a  chosen  few, 
not  of  the  masses  of  the  Methodist  people.  Then  let  it 
be  remembered  that  the  majority  of  delegates  to  the 
General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
are  ministers  elected  by  the  Annual  Conferences,  which 
are  composed  exclusively  of  the  itinerant  preachers." 

About  the  same  date  the  following  appeared  editori- 
ally in  the  New  York  Independent: 

"It  is  dimly  believed  by  the  uninstructed  that  the 
adoption  of  the  principle  of  lay  delegation  by  the  Meth- 
odists gave  to  the  laymen  of  that  denomination  some 
practical  share  in  the  administration  of  Ciiurch  affairs. 
That  belief  rests,  however,  upon  very  slight  founda- 
tions. To  the  Annual  Conferences,  where  all  the  im- 
portant work  of  the  denomination  is  done,  they  have 
not  been  admitted.  "When  the  session  of  the  Annual 
Conference,  which  is  held  previous  to  the  meeting  of 
the  General  Conference,  is  assembled,  a  lay  electoral 
convention,  composed  of  delegates  from  the  several 
churches,  is  called  at  the  same  time  and  jilace.  The 
laymen  meet  by  themselves,  and  elect  delegates  to  the 
General  Conference;  then,  commonly,  a  place  is  made 
for  them  in  the  room  where  the  Annual  Conference  is 
in  session,  and  they  walk  in  and  are  addressed  by  the 
bishop,  to  whom  one  of  their  number  responds;  after 
which  they  withdi-aw,  and  the  work  of  the  Conference, 
which  has  been  interrupted  by  this  interesting  episode, 
proceeds.  Their  only  relation  to  the  working  body  of 
the  Church  consists  in  their  being  permitted,  while  the 
Conference  is  in  session,  to  march  up  the  aisle  and  then 


74 


PinNcii'LEs  OF  Church  Government. 


march  down  again.  In  the  General  Conference,  which 
meets  once  in  four  years,  and  wluch  is  the  law-making 
body  of  the  Church,  the  laymen  will  iiave  a  voice;  in 
the  Animal  Conferences  they  have  neither  part  nor 
lot." 

In  its  issue  of  October  19,  1872,  The  MetliodiKt  ex- 
pressed the  opinion  that  we  move  too  slowly  in  this 
whole  matter  of  lay  representation.  It  added:  "The 
Southern  Methodist  Church  moved  long  before  us,  and 
it  gave,  not  only  representation  in  the  Animal  as  well 
as  the  General  Conference,  but  it  gave  equal  re])re- 
sentation  of  the  two  classes  in  the  latter.  Our  phiu  as 
thus  far  carried  out  is  simply  a  'shaUby  '  one,  and  can 
be  tolerated  only  as  initial  to  something  better." 

It  is  worthy  of  note  that  Dr.  Perrine  anticipated  all 
these  objections  and  sought  to  jirovide  against  them. 
At  the  Brooklyn  General  Conference  in  1872,  nothing 
daunted  by  the  fact  that  every  member  of  that  body 
had  fors.iken  him  in  his  oppusition  to  the  "  plan,"  on 
May  9  he  presented  a  memorial  asking  enlargement  of 
the  electoral  basis  of  the  present  plan,  so  that  all  the 
membership  outside  of  the  quarterly  conference  might 
be  represented  in  the  body.* 

On  the  sixteenth  day  of  the  same  session  he  offered  a 
resolution  providing  for  such  an  extension  of  the  right 
of  suffrage  to  all  the  adult  members  of  our  Church  out- 
side of  the  quarterly  conferences  as  should  make  the 
lay  delegates  in  reality,  what  they  have  been  only  in 
name,  the  representatives  of  the  people.  He  also  asked 
for  the  admission  of  laymen  into  our  Annual  Confer- 
*  Journal,  1872,  p.  115. 


The  Lay  Delegation-  Movemexi-.  7'> 

ences,  especially  to  secure  their  iuvaluuble  services  in 
the  department  of  finance  and  other  secularities.* 

Soon  after  the  General  Conference  of  1876  closed, 
Dr.  Perrine  in  some  way  became  advised  tliat  the  late 
venerable  Rev.  Dr.  Lovick  Pierce,  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  was  in  possession  of  some  im- 
portant information  from  Bishop  Asbury,  communicated 
to  him  personally,  and  he  wrote  to  him  for  a  statement. 
Dr.  Pierce  replied  as  follows: 

'•Sparta,  Ga.,  Augu  td,  1876. 

"Dear  Brother  Peruine:  Yours  of  August  2 
came  to  hand  on  the  7th.  And  althougli  it  was  easily 
read,  yet  we  could  not  be  certain  as  to  the  name.  It 
was  to  ns  a  new  name.  And  as  to  the  Daily  Christian 
Adoocate  i-eferred  to  by  you,  it  was  not  sent  to  me,  so 
that  I  could  not  see  the  name  in  print.  I  am  not  sure 
that  I  am  right  now,  but  several  good  I'eaders  have 
made  it  out  to  be — Perrine. 

"  Well,  as  to  Bishop  Asbury's  talk  to  me,  and  about 
which  you  inquire.  It  took  place  in  1811.  In  those 
days  it  was  made  the  presiding  elder's  duty,  wlien  the 
bishop  in  his  annual  round  entered  his  district,  to  meet 
him  and  accompany  him  through  it.  I  was  a  presiding 
elder,  and  was  in  the  discharge  of  this  duty  when,  in  a 
long  and  lonely  day's  ride,  he  said  to  me,  'I  judge  the 
time  will  come  when  our  people  will  ask  a  representative 
power  in  our  legislative  Conference;  and  if  so,  I  judge 
it  would  be  best  to  have  two  houses — a  house  of  repre- 
sentatives made  up  of  a  mixture  of  laymen  and  local 

*  Journal,  1S72,  p.  239. 


7d         Pkixciples  of  Church  Govekxment. 

Ijreachers,  and  a  liouse  of  old,  well-tried,  loyal  itin- 
erants.' This  liouse  he  called,  in  his  own  peculiar 
Ashuriiin  way,  The  Senators.  His  idea  was  to  let 
every  special  department  in  the  Church,  made  subject 
to  any  special  law  in  the  Discipline,  be  represented  in 
its  law-making  council.  And  his  safeguard  for  Amer- 
ican Episcopal  Methodism  was  in  the  common  sense  of 
State  legislation,  that  nothing  could  be  law  until  the 
house  passed  it.  His  '  Senators '  was  to  insure  against 
wild  theories  from  without,  so  that  if  onr  original 
economy  was  ever  metamorphosed  it  should  be  at  least 
by  us.  He  was  a  wise  man,  and  saw  from  the  first  that 
no  policy  that  ignored  the  will  of  the  people  would  be 
safe  in  America.  Hence  he  would  not  be  ordained 
bishop  over  American  Methodists  at  Mr.  Wesley's  nom- 
ination until  he  could  be  chosen  by  the  preachers,  if  in- 
deed he  was  their  choice. 

"I  do  not  recollect  of  his  saying  a  word  in  disap- 
proval of  such  an  event.  His  idea  was  to  let  the  Amer- 
ican political  policy  in  regard  to  direct  representation 
into  our  legislative  policy,  with  such  constitutional 
guards  as  would  render  harmful  changes  impossible  by 
mere  legislation.  I  do  not  recollect  Bishop  Asbury's 
saying  a  word  in  reference  to  mixed  up  General  Con- 
ferences of  lay  and  clerical  delegates,  all  voting  to- 
gether as  one  simple  mass.  I  think  his  ideal  was,  if  the 
time  ever  came,  two  houses. 

"  I  will  say  now,  this  talk  made  a  deep  impression 
on  my  mind.  I  was  young,  and  could  not  see  why  he 
should  mention  a  matter  of  this  kind  to  me.  But  next 
year  was  ihe  inauguration  of  a  delegated  General  Con- 


The  Lay  Delegation  Movement. 


77 


ference,  itself  a  proof  of  the  call  for  direct  reprt's  nta- 
tion,  at  that  time  applied  only  to  all  parts  of  our  great 
itinerant  pastoral  field.  Bishop  Asbnry  was  a  far-see- 
ing man,  and  looking  into  the  probable  future  of  Amer- 
ican Meihodism  he  saw  it  to  be  probable  that  the 
Church  he  wished  to  preserve  intact  migljt  be  rent  in 
twain  at  tliis  point.  And  the  going  off  of  the  Prot- 
estant INIethodist  Church  in  1829  was  largely  upon  this 
ground — what  they  called  mutual  rights. 

"  But  lay  delegation  in  law-making  bodies  is  now  a 
passion,  and  must  be  made  a  fashion.  As  to  our  move 
in  this  matter — and  I  think  we  were  foremost — it  was 
an  out-and-out  ministerial  contribution.  It  was  not 
even  asked  for  by  a  single  layman  in  all  the  Church 
that  ever  came  to  niy  knowledge.  But,  like  the  dear 
old  bishop,  we  were  sure  it  would  come.  We  could  see 
no  good  reason  why  it  should  be  refused,  and  deemed 
it  wiser  to  give  it  than  it  would  be,  undoj-  a  demand  for 
it,  to  grant  it.  We  deemed  it  best  to  make  the  number 
equal.  So  far,  we  are  greatly  pleased,  and  look  upon  a 
wise  lay  delegation  in  a  General  Conference  as  very 
conservative. 

'•'And  now  for  my  own  opinion  as  to  the  two-house 
idea  :  I  think  all  together,  and  all  vote  together,  is 
better.  A  union  in  Church  legislation  that  leads  to 
unity  in  Church  affections,  aims,  and  objects  is  the  most 
conserving  policy.  If  necessity  makes  it  wise  to  know 
who  is  who,  the  call  for  yeas  and  nays  will  do  it.  You 
must  excuse  the  scribble  in  this  letter  ;  I  am  old  and 
nervous,  cannot  write  fail-. 

"  Very  sincerely  yours,  L.  Pierce." 


78 


Pkixciples  of  Chuech  Government. 


Dr.  Perrine  promptly  responded  to  the  above  letter, 
th:iiikiiig  its  author  for  the  priceless  information  it  con- 
tained in  respect  to  Bishop  Asbury's  views,  and  sug- 
gesting the  hope  that  Dr.  Pierce  himself  might  find 
reason  to  change  his  mind  as  to  the  advisability  of  two 
houses  in  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  legislation.  He 
also  forwarded  to  Dr.  Pierce  certain  documents  con- 
taining a  few  of  his  a  guments  on  the  subject  in  hand. 
Tliese  had  their  desired  eflfect,  as  the  sequel  will  show. 
Dr.  Pierce  wrote  again  as  follows  : 

"Sparta,  Ga.,  Aug^j^t  2i,  1S76. 

"Dear  Brother  Perrine:  Yours  of  August  15  is 
in  hand  and  has  been  read  twice  over  with  much  in- 
terest. The  value  at  which  you  take  it  is  compensation 
enough,  although  writing  is  onerous  to  lue  at  all  times, 
especially  so  when  the  thermometer  is  ranging  as  high 
as  98  almost  daily.  But  I  hasten  my  reply.  In  as  far 
as  my  expressed  opinion  is  concerned,  it  was  only  given 
as  my  opinion  unasked.  If  therefore  you  should  ever 
think  it  needful  to  publish  Bishop  Asbury's  conversa- 
tion to  me,  feel  at  full  liberty  to  do  so  without  any 
reference  to  my  opinion.  It  was  incidentally  men- 
tioned as  between  us  alone.  My  name  is  too  humble 
to  give  my  opinion  weight  in  a  matter  like  this. 

"  Let  me,  if  you  please,  caution  you  a  little.  It  must 
not  be  said  on  my  authority  that  Bishop  Asbury  ex- 
pressed any  desire  for  such  a  reorganization  of  the 
Church  then.  But  this  was  his  apprehension,  that  from 
our  form  of  government  it  would  come  to  pass  that 
our  people,  as  well  in  Church  as  in  State,  would  desire. 


The  Lay  DELKGAXioy  Movemexp. 


79 


perhaps  ck'niand,  a  direct  representation  in  the  law- 
making assembly  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 
And  ray  opinion  was,  and  -is,  that  Bishop  Asbury's 
opinion  was  that  if  the  time  ever  did  come  it  ought  to 
be  accorded,  and  if  accorded  how  best  to  do  it  Avas 
what  occupied  his  mind.  Hence,  as  I  understood  him, 
he  threw  out  his  two-house  idea — a  house  of  represen- 
tatives made  up  of  laymen  and  local  preachers  ;  his 
idea  was  that  if  ever  this  re-modeled  form  of  Methodist 
ecclesiasticism  came  to  pass  every  department  of  the 
Church  which  required  special  legislation  should  be 
represented  in  this  branch  of  our  General  Conference. 
Next,  a  senatorial  house  made  up  exclusively  of  itiner- 
ant ministers  chosen  either  by  seniority  or  ballot.  Here 
again  came  in  his  grand  idea,  that  an  itinerant  ministry 
must  of  course  demand  and  have  special  legislation,  it 
being  in  itself  a  grand  specialty,  so  much  so  that  if 
ever  the  time  came  when  a  distribution  of  legislative 
power  must  be  made  between  clergy  and  laity  this 
senatorial  house  of  traveling  preachers  must  remain. 
There  never  can  be  a  real  itinerant  ministry  only  where 
the  legislation  is  for  itself  and  by  itself,  or  safely  under 
its  control.  Hence  Bishop  Asbury's  wise  conception, 
that  if  the  time  ever  came  when  legislative  power  must 
be  divided  between  clergy  and  laity  it  should  be  so 
done  as  to  make  a  joint  agreement  between  the  two 
houses  indispensable  to  its  becoming  a  binding  law  on 
any  one  division  of  accountable  subjects. 

"  You  inquire  if  I  caught  your  idea  right — wliether 
Bishop  Asbury's  idea  was  for  special  legislation  ;  as,  for 
instance,  the  lower  house  tor  all  merely  secular  or  fiiian- 


80        Principles  of  Church  Government. 


ci.al  interests  and  liis  clerical  senate  for  its  moral  disci- 
pline. I  am  glad  you  ask  this  question,  for  although  I 
cannot  answer  it  as  a  settled  fact  in  his  mind,  I  can 
safely  say  what  was  my  impression  then,  and  has  been 
ever  since,  that  his  idea  was,  as  State  legislatures  in 
their  two  houses  might  originate  a  bill  in  either  house, 
amend  it  in  either,  discuss  it  in  either,  but  if  it  passed 
into  a  law  it  must  be  by  adoption  of  both  houses. 

''It  has  always  been  a  strange  occurrence  to  me  that 
Bishop  Asbury  should  have  made  this  wonderful  com- 
munication to  me.  sixty-five  years  ago  this  September, 
and  that  I  have  been  spared  so  many  ye:irs,  it  seems, 
to  declare  this  wonderful  conception  of  that  pioneer 
bisliop  of  Episcopal  Methodism  at  the  only  time  I 
think  in  which  it  has  ever  been  called  for  by  pending 
issues. 

This  two-house  General  Conference  is  going  to  be 
bi)th  a  question  and  the  question.  I  am  not  through 
your  argument  yet.  I  am  well  pleased  with  yoixr  views 
as  far  as  I  am  sure  I  get  your  meaning  ;  I  am  sorry 
and  sore  every  time  a  sensible  man  says  anj'  thing  that 
leaves  me  in  doubt  where  Elliott's  Great  Secession 
is  quoted,  whether  it  is  in  approval  or  in  condemnation. 
Any  one  that  had  been  present,  and  heard  and  seen  what 
I  did  in  Dr.  Elliott,  could  never  cease  to  wonder  and 
to  grieve  that  he  should  ever  write  a  book  and  call  it 
by  this  false  name.  We  were  never  a  secession,  and 
never  intend  to  be.  We  intend  to  be  genuine  Episco- 
pal Methodists.  I  love  to  cori  espond  with  my  Nortliern 
Methodist  (brethren),  but  would  not  with  any  one  that 
would  call  me  a  Secessionist.    Write  me  if  I  am  misled 


The  Lay  Delegation  Movement. 


81 


in  any  way.  Would  not  be  svirprised  if  we  all  became 
two-bouse  Metbodists  at  last. 

"  I  am  yours  in  brotberly  love,  L.  Pierce." 

Tbe  next  and  final  letter  of  Dr.  Pierce  shows  bim  to 
have  become  a  thorough  convert  to  Dr.  Perrine  s 
VIEWS.    It  reads  as  follows  : 

"  Sparta,  Ga.,  August  30,  1876. 
"Dear  Brother  Perrine:  Allow  me  first  to  con- 
gratulate tbe  North  and  the  South  on  tbe  success  of  our 
Fi-aternal  Commission.  Such  easy  harmony  was  proof 
of  what  makes  it  best  of  all,  which  is,  that  both  sides 
had  made  j^eace  in  their  hearts  before,  and  only  wanted 
some  suitable  way  to  give  it  formal  expression.  Tbe 
commission  idea  was  tbe  right  one.  I  wonder  if  there 
will  be  any  one,  North  or  South,  silly  enough  to  enter 
a  caveat.  I  hope  not.  If  we  are  God's  building  this 
fraternal  union  will  be  the  beginning  of  a  new  era  in 
Episcopal  Methodism.  We  ought  in  some  way  to  cele- 
brate the  event  as  tbe  great  moral  issue  of  our  national 
centennial. 

"  But  my  object  in  this  writing  is  to  s:iy  I  have  read 
all  your  speeches  on  your  proposed  two-house  General 
Conference  plan,  and  on  your  main  ground — a  safer  leg- 
islation— I  am  a  thorough  convert.  Nothing  has  wor- 
ried me  more  in  my  General  Conference  life  than  a  hur- 
ried, excited  legislation  in  the  last  week  of  a  tedious 
session.  In  a  word,  to  see  a  Methodist  General  Confer- 
ence get  into  a  muss,  like  a  partisan  legislature,  seeking 
to  defeat  or  to  carry  through  a  measure  by  parliament- 
6 


82 


Principles  of  Church  Goveuxmext. 


ary  legerde  main,  was  a  mortification  to  me  hard  to  bear. 
I  can  say  for  myself,  what  few  of  my  brethren  can  say, 
I  iiave  never  seen  the  time  yet  when  to  get  home  made 
me  willing  to  hurry  through  an  Annual  or  a  General 
Conference.  I  am  satisfied  a  two-house  General  Con- 
ference would  do  safer  legislation  than  the  present.  I 
would  like  the  triennial  feature,  although  out  here  some 
would  like  to  jump  to  once  in  seven  years,  just  because 
of  too  much  legislation.  But  it  is  really  hurried,  in- 
considerate legislation  that  does  the  mischief.  Two 
houses  is  the  only  relief  I  can  see ;  and  that  would  not 
be  perfect.  If  there  was  any  way  by  which  a  joint 
board  coidd  make  out  a  calendar  of  resolutions  and 
proposed  revisals  within  the  first  week,  tliat  might  be 
discussed  and  decided  as  worthy  of  consideration,  it 
would  greatly  aid  in  wise  deliberation.  I  am  not  sure 
about  your  organization  plan.  I  am  not  prepared  either 
to  adopt  or  amend  just  now. 

"  But  how  is  it  that  there  was  so  much  speaking  by 
you  in  favor  of  your  views,  with  such  clear  and  unde- 
niable proofs  of  the  wisdom  and  even  necessity  of  two 
houses  for  good  legislation,  and  so  much  mercurial  sen- 
sibility displayed,  and  not  a  man  tliat  I  have  seen 
that  even  attempted  to  show  any  fallacy  in  your  argu- 
ment ?  Your  minority  might  have  been,  and  as  I  think 
you  think  were,  the  mental  strength  of  the  house  ;  and 
if  so,  the  triumph  of  your  scheme  will  only  be  a  ques- 
tion of  time. 

"Bishop  Asbury's  forecastings  about  the  future  of 
American  Methodism,  as  far  as  were  hinted  to  me, 
were  close  by  prophetic  inspiration.    And  as  to  our 


The  Lay  Delegation  Movement. 


83 


future,  I  hope  we  will  respectfully  and  carefully  turn 
upon  one  common  plan  as  to  leading  Methodislic  feat- 
ures; and,  as  lay  representation  is  now  a  fixed  fact,  I  hope 
this  two-house  General  Conference  will  be  calmly  con- 
sidered, and  the  Lord  will  provide  for  it  if  it  is  in  any 
wise  his  ultimatum. 

"  O  for  peace,  for  fraternal  love,  for  oneness  in  all 
great  missionary  work !  It  ill  becomes  us  in  foreign 
fields  to  seem  to  be  setting  up  two  Episcopal  Method- 
isms.    Let  us  be  one  in  sweet  accord. 

"  Yours  ever,  L.  Pieece." 


84        Pkinciplks  of  Church  Government. 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  PRIESTHOOD  OF  THE  PEOPLE. 

The  real,  dogmatic  basis  of  the  proposed  change  in 
the  polity  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  may  be 
said  to  have  been  the  doctrine  of  the  "  priesthood  of 
the  people."  This  was  the  stand-point  from  which  the 
responsibility  of  the  laity  was  most  vigorously  asserted 
from  the  pulpit  and  through  the  religious  press. 

Properly  stated  and  guarded,  this  doctrine  is  rudi- 
mental,  rich,  and  glorious.  It  is  one  phase  of  the  grand 
idea  on  which  the  great  Reformation  under  Luther  was 
projected  and  carried  forward.  The  primary  principle 
in  that  Reformation  was  the  doctrine  of  "  justification 
by  faith ; "  the  secondary  principle  was  that  of  the 
"  priesthood  of  the  people." 

It  has  been  claimed  that  the  only  scriptural  use  of  the 
word  "priest"  or  "priesthood,"  as  it  respects  Chris- 
tianity, is  in  reference  to  the  common  priesthood  of 
Christian  men  and  the  "high  priesthood"  of  Christ; 
that  Paul  is  careful,  even  in  regard  to  the  latter,  to 
show  that  it  is  peculiar,  is  not  according  to  the  priest- 
hood of  Aaron  or  the  Levitcs,  but  altogether  unique — 
^' after  the  order  of  Melchizedek;"  that  Christianity 
knows  no  technical  or  clerical  priesthood — none  other 
than  this  common  priestly  function  and  dignity  of  all 
regenerated  souls,  under  the  sacerdotal  headship  of 


Doctrine  op  the  Priesthood  of  the  People.  85 


Christ;  that  it  has  its  ministry — its  divinely  called 
and  commissioned  administrators  of  instruction  and  dis- 
cipline; that  it  clothes  all  it"?  true  children  with  pon- 
tifical robes,  and  commands  all  of  them,  as  "a  royal 
priesthood,"  to  live,  work,  and  suffer  for  the  Church, 
the  kingdom  of  God  on  earth. 

Aristotle's  definition  of  a  priest  was,  one  "presiding 
over  things  relating  to  the  gods;"  and  this  corresponds 
quite  closely  with  that  of  Paul:  "Every  high-priest, 
being  taken  from  among  men,  is  appointed  for  men  in 
things  pertaining  to  God,  that  he  may  offer  both  gifts 
and  sacrifices  for  sins."  Before  the  Mosaic  law  was 
given  priesthood  correspi  nded  more  closely  to  its  pres- 
ent status  in  ihe  Church  than  ii  did  under  the  law. 
There  was  then  less  of  the  intermediary  and  ceremonial, 
more  of  the  openness  and  directness  which  should  char- 
acterize the  approach  of  pious  people  to  God.  Thus  we 
are  told  that  Abel  presented  his  own  offerings  to  the 
Lord.  "He  brought  of  the  firstlings  of  his  flock,  and 
of  the  fat  thereof.  And  the  Lord  had  respect  to  Abel 
and  his  offering."  And  of  Noah  we  read  that  he 
"builded  an  altar  unto  the  Lord,  and  took  of  every 
clean  beast  and  of  every  clean  fowl,  and  offered  burnt 
offerings  on  the  altar."  Abraham  also  ''built  an  altar 
and  called  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord."  IMelchizedek, 
king  of  Salem,  also  "brought  bread  and  wine;  and  he 
was  the  priest  of  the  most  high  God."  But  when  the 
Aaronic  priesthood  was  establislied  under  the  law  of 
Moses  the  priests  became  a  professional  order,  and  were 
alone  authorized  to  offer  sacirifices.  Thus  Aaron  bore 
the  judgment  of  the  childrea.of  Israel  upon  his  heart,. 


86  Principles  of  Church  Government. 


and  their  names  upon  his  breastplate,  when  he  went  in 
unto  the  holy  place  for  a  memorial  before  the  Lord 
continually.  Mediation  was  the  essential  idea  of  the 
Avhole  Hebrew  priesthood.  Its  specific  object  was  to 
mediate  between  God  and  man,  and  to  speiik  to  the 
latter  in  the  name  of  the  former.  The  priests  were 
clothed  with  representative  power  to  represent  the  peo- 
ple in  the  presence  of  Jehovah,  and  to  prepare  the  way 
by  which  they  themselves  might  approach  God.  As  an 
educational  measure  this  arrangement  served  a  noble 
purpose.  It  impressed  upon  the  minds  of  God's  people 
the  necessity  of  a  sacrifice,  and  paved  tlie  way  for  com- 
prehension of  the  great  Sacrifice  to  be  offered  once  for 
all,  after  which  the  sacerdotal  priesthood  should  pass 
away  and  the  people  should  themselves  enter  the  holy 
of  holies  and  serve  as  their  own  priests.  This  was  the 
significance  of  the  rent  veil  in  the  temple  when  Jesus 
died.  The  great  sacrifice  was  then  oflTered,  and  all  true 
believers  were  made  kings  and  priests  unto  God,  having 
permission  to  enter  the  holy  place  and  offer  their  sac- 
rifices of  praise  and  thanksgiving.  Thus  the  shadow 
disappeared  when  the  substance  came.  As  a  mediator 
Jesus  Christ  is  the  only  priest;  as  servants  of  God  true 
Christians  are  all  priests,  one  having  no  advantage  over 
another  in  the  privileges  of  the  sanctuary  and  the  serv- 
ices of  a  holy  life.  No  hint  of  any  priest,  or  any  officer 
answering  to  that  description,  can  be  found  in  the  New 
Testament  Church.  As  a  religious  order  priesthood 
perished  with  Judaism.  The  priesthood  of  the  class 
was  merged  into  tlie  priestly  chai'acter  of  Jesus  Christ 
and  that  of  the  whole  discipleship,    Paul  could  now 


DocTBixE  or  Tiiii  Priksthoou  of  the  People.  87 


exhort:  "Seeing  then  that  we  have  a  great  high-priest, 
that  is  passed  into  the  heavens,  Jesus,  the  son  of  God, 
let  us  hohl  fast  our  profession.  Let  us  come  bohlly  unto 
tlie  throne  of  grace,  that  we  may  obtain  mercy  and 
Snd  grace  to  help  in  time  of  need."  And  Peter  could 
now  say:  "Ye  are  a  chosen  generation,  a  royal  priest- 
hood, a  holy  nation,  a  peculiar  people."  And  John  on 
Patraos,  as  lie  listened  to  the  everlasting  song,  could 
take  up  the  strain:  "Thou  art  worthy,  for  thou  wast 
slain,  and  hast  redeemed  us  to  God  by  thy  blood,  and 
hast  made  us  unto  our  God  kings  and  priests."  As  a 
high-priest  Jesus  sweeps  the  whole  compass  of  human 
existence.  Back  of  the  Jewish  economy,  back  of  Aaron 
and  all  his  train,  his  representative  office  goes,  for  in 
"  being  made  perfect  he  became  the  author  of  eternal 
salvation  unto  all  them  that  obey  him;  calleil  of  God 
a  high-priost  after  the  order  of  ^lelchiz  'dek."  He  is 
openly  and  directly  the  world's  lligli-priest,  and  all  who 
believe  in  liim  constitute  a  holj'  priesthood,  having  a 
spiritual  reign  upon  the  earth.  Thus  under  the  Gospel 
is  fulfilled  more  fully  the  divine  declaration  to  Israel: 
"If  ye  will  obey  my  voice,  then  shall  ye  be  to  me  a 
kingdom  of  priests  and  a  holy  nation."   Exod.  xix,  6. 

It  therefore  follows  that,  in  tlie  old  Jewish  sense  of 
the  terra.  Christian  pastors  are  not  priests,  at  least  not 
any  more  so  than  their  fellow-Christians.  Their  office 
is  not  to  mediate,  but  to  proclaim  the  Mediator  ;  not 
to  atone,  but  to  preach  the  atonement.  As  ministers 
of  the  Gospel  they  are  successors  of  the  prophets  *  and 

*  Tlie  Cliurcli  at  Jerusalem  had  its  prophets.  See  Acts  xi,  27; 
XV,  32;  Ki,  10;  Matt,  x,  41. 


88        Principles  of  Church  Government. 


ruling  elders  of  Israel,  rather  than  of  the  priests,  though 
in  a  metaphorical  sense  they  might  perhaps  properly 
be  styled  priests.  As  leaders  of  the  people  (so  consti- 
tuted by  the  call  of  God  and  the  approval  of  the 
Church)  it  is  their  special  function  "to  oftor  up  spiritual 
sacritices  of  prayer,  praise,  thanksgiving,"  etc.  They 
are  taken  from  among  men  to  offer  up  to  the  "un- 
bloody sacrifice,"  as  it  was  anciently  called,  the  com- 
memorative sacrifice  of  the  blood  of  Christ.  In  the 
matter  of  drawing  near  to  God  they  possess  no  advan- 
tages over  their  fellow-Christians.  They  minister 
because  called  to  it  in  the  order  of  the  Church.  They 
are  preachers  and  teachers  appointed  by  the  Holy 
Ghost  as  overseers  *  of  the  interests  of  God's  kingdom, 
and  to  feed  the  flock  of  Christ  and  make  known  the 
living  Saviour  to  dying  men.  Theirs  is  a  happy,  holy, 
useful,  and  necessary  office,  but  in  point  of  spiritual 
privileges  its  incumbents  are  not  lifted  one  iota  above 
the  high  plane  which  all  Christians  may  occupy  as  con- 
stituent members  of  the  royal  priesthood. 

But  the  relation  of  each  royal  priest  to  his  God  is 
one  thing,  and  his  relation  to  his  children,  to  the  teacher 
of  his  children,  to  the  assessor  of  his  property,  or  the 
steward  of  his  class'  to  the  governor  of  the  State  or  the 
pastor  of  his  church,  to  his  candidate  for  Congress  or 
for  the  bishopric  is  quite  another. 

"Doubtless,"  said  Dr.  Perrine,  "all  these  relations 
should  be  purified  and  seasoned  with  grace;  but  we 
submit  that  they  are  not  priestly  relations,  and  that  his 

*  The  designation  "  Tliose  that  are  .over  you  "  is  first  met  with  in 
the  earhest  of  Paul's  epistles.  1  Thess.  v,  1 2. 


Doctrine  of  the  Priesthood  of  the  People.  89 

duties  in  them  are  not  priestly  functions.  The  drivers  of 
a  stage  coach  or  of  a  steam-engine  might  be  good  men, 
both  spiritual  and  devout,  but  nevertheless  driving 
stage  or  steam  horses  could  scarcely  be  called  priestly 
functions.  The  barber  might  be  a  very  devout  man 
and  a  very  worthy  member  of  Christ's  spiritual  Church, 
nevertheless  but  very  few  would  ever  regard  the  func- 
tion of  clipping  the  beard  and  dressing  the  hair  as 
especially  priestly.  This  principle  has  evidently  been 
carried  too  far." 

And  so  with  regard  to  each  individual  royal  priest  in 
the  congregation.  "  We  must  draw  a  broad  and  con- 
spicuous line  of  demarkation,"  said  Dr.  Perrine,  "be- 
tween their  priestli/  function  of  entering  the  holiest  and 
offering  up  spiritual  sacrifices  to  God  through  Jesus 
Christ,  and  the  unpriestly  outward  duties  of  regulating 
the  furnace,  renting  the  pews,  electing  the  stewards, 
appointing  the  pastors,  or  legislating  for  the  Church. 
The  whole  external  structure  of  Church  organization, 
or  body  ecclesiastic,  as  such,  in  our  judgment,  is  as  dis- 
tinct from  the  priestli/  function  of  the  soul  ascending 
in  spiritual  sacrifices  to  God  as  the  anatomy  of  Aaron's 
heart,  stomach,  or  brain  was  from  his  act  of  offering 
up  of  the  bleeding  lamb  or  incense  upon  the  altar." 

Not  with  the  utmost  consistency,  therefore,  did  the 
advocates  of  lay  delegation  urge  the  doctrine  of  the 
priesthood  of  the  people  as  the  true  scriptural  bnsis  for 
the  proposed  reform.  We  know  that  this  doctrine  in 
their  hands  was  tremendously  effective.  The  min- 
istry and  laity  gave  earnest  heed  to  its  promulgation. 
Without  carefully- considering  its  true  significance  and 


90        Pkixciples  of  Church  Government. 


bearing,  they  liailed  its  special  application  to  the  lay 
movement  as  something  new  under  the  sun,  and  having 
in  it  the  promise  of  vmbounded  inspiration  to  Christian 
work  and  effectiveness.  Said  one  of  the  religious  jour- 
nals of  the  period:  "Let  our  business  men  learn  that 
they  have  no  more  right  to  use  their  talents  and  suc- 
cess for  merely  selfish  advantage  than  the  pastors  in 
their  altars,  the  city  missionaries  who  may  be  starving 
on  their  stinted  contributions,  or  the  missionaries  whom 
they  send  to  the  ends  of  the  earth  have  to  be  equally 
selfish,  and  we  shall  change  the  whole  condition  of  the 
religious  world.  And  in  doing  so  we  shall  but  restore 
primitive  Christianity  ;  for  the  '  j)riesthoood  of  the 
people,'  as  taught  by  the  reformers,  was  but  the  re- 
vival of  an  apostolic  idea — the  idea  that  all  men  who, 
by  regeneration,  enter  the  kingdom  of  God  on  earth 
must  live,  work,  and,  if  need  be,  die,  for  the  interests 
of  that  kingilom  ;  that  whatever  difference  ot  function 
or  mode  of  work  there  may  be,  as  between  preacher 
and  layman,  and  whatever  difference  in  the  degree  of 
responsibility,  there  is  no  difference  in  the  principle 
and  certainty  of  that  responsibility  ;  that  the  one  talent 
will  be  held  accountable  as  well  as  the  two  or  five  ; 
that  it  was,  in  the  Master's  great  lesson,  not  the  man  of 
sujieriority,  nor  he  of  mediocrity,  but  he  of  inferiority, 
he  of  the  one  talent,  rather  than  of  the  two  or  five,  who 
■was  lost  and  cast  into  '  outer  darkness.' "  All  very 
true,  but  really  what  had  this  to  do  with  God's  j)lan 
and  teachings  respecting  the  government  of  the 
Church  ?    We  shall  see. 

It  so  happened  that  among  all  the  extremists  who 


DOCTEIXE  OF  THE  PuiESTIIOOD  OF  THE  PeOPLE.  91 

urged  this  doctrine  as  the  ground  of  refoim  in  tho 
governraent  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  none 
were  more  prominent,  more  eloquent,  or  more  influen- 
tial than  the  great  liistorian  of  Methodism,  Dr.  Abel 
Stevens. 

The  poor  man  who  suddenly  acquires  Avealth  be- 
comes the  typical  rich  man  ;  tlie  obscure  subject  who, 
on  the  wave  of  popular  excitement,  is  exalted  to  high 
office  becomes  the  typical  ruler;  the  conservative  man, 
once  changed  in  his  opinions,  becomes  the  typical 
radii-al.  Such  a  radical,  upon  this  subject  at  least,  was 
Dr.  Stevens. 

"I  venture  to  claim  a  special  right  to  speak  upon 
this  subject,"  said  he  at  the  ojjening  of  his  memorable 
speech  in  favor  of  lay  delegation  in  St.  Paul's  Church, 
Newark,  N.  J.,  Wednesday  evening,  February  26,  18G9, 
as  reported  in  T/ie  Methodist. 

"A  special  right  to  speak?"  Why?  "For  what  I 
think  w  ill  be  considered  by  wise  men  a  valid  reason — 
the  fact  that  I  have  changed  my  opinions  upon  it.  .  .  . 
I  was  born  into  the  Church  in  the  time  of  the  old  radi- 
cal controversy,  and  was  educated  to  believe  lay  repre- 
sentation an  inadmissible  heresy.  Practically,  it  was 
proscribed.  I  doubt  very  much  whether  a  young  man 
could  then  have  got  admission  into  an  Annual  Confer- 
ence if  it  was  umlerstood  that  he  was  a  '  radical '  upon 
this  question.  Thus  trained,  I  accepted  the  theory  of 
the  Church,  and  in  later  years  defended  it  with  my 
l)t'n,  but  never  with  an  original  argument.  The  cita- 
tions from  my  writings,  made  by  my  opponents,  are 
only  the  arguments  of  our  old  authorities,  sincerely  re- 


92        Principles  of  Church  Government. 


uttered  by  rae  in  my  pupilage.  I  changed  my  opinion 
before  the  controversy  revived  in  the  Church." 

But  what  were  Dr.  Stevens's  opinions  now  ?  He  had 
a  great  many,  and  forcible  ones,  too,  but  our  space  and 
occasion  will  here  admit  of  only  such  paragraphs  as 
Dr.  Perrine  considered  especially  objectionable. 

"Not  that  we  are  utterly  opposed,"  said  Dr.  Perrine 
in  one  of  his  able  articles  in  reply  to  Dr.  Stevens  ;  "not 
that  we  are  utterly  opposed  to  the  admission  of  laymen 
into  the  councils  of  the  Church  on  any  conditions,  not 
that  we  are  opposed  at  all  to  their  admission  on  script- 
ural conditions,  but  because  we  believe  the  fundamental 
positions  of  the  speech  to  be  fundamentally  erroneous 
—  scripturally,  logically,  and  historically  false  ;  and  be- 
cause we  believe  its  eloquent  heresies  from  their  fun- 
damental character  to  be  calculated  to  work  wide-spread 
evil  in  the  Church  of  God." 

The  first  general  postulate  in  Dr.  Stevens's  speech 
was  that  "  the  spirit  and  genius  of  primitive  Christian- 
ity justify,  not  to  say  demand,  this  improvement  (the 
plan  of  lay  delegation)  in  our  Church  system."  He 
affirmed  "  tlie  essential  equality  of  all  saints  in  the 
kingdom  of  God  on  earth."  "We  hear  a  great  deal 
nowadays,"  he  said,  "about  the  theocratical  nature  of 
Church  government,  its  divine  rights  and  prerogatives. 
You  must  not  reason  from  state  governments  about 
Church  government,  we  are  told:  they  lack  analogy. 
The  assumption  is  contrary  to  the  whole  tenor  of  the 
New  Testament,  and  the  whole  evidence  of  contem- 
porary history. 

He  said  again :  "The  Lutheran  Church-  refuse  to  call 


Doctrine  of  the  Priesthood  of  the  People.  93 

tlieir  clerical  grades  'orders;'  they  recognize  them 
simply  as  offices.  They  thus  assert  my  general  posi- 
tiuu  :  The  essential  equality  of  all  saints  in  the  king- 
dom of  God;  the  priesthood  of  the  people;  the  priest- 
hood of  the  sexton  yonder  at  the  door,  if  he  is  a  devout 
man,  as  well  of  the  teacher  or  minister  here  in  the 
altar;  the  priesthood  of  the  chorister  yonder  and  all 
around  him,  if  they  are  real  disciples;  the  priesthood 
of  the  mechanic  and  farmer — of  all.  Whoever  enters 
into  the  Cluirch  a  living  Christian  should  be  recognized 
from  the  pews  and  from  the  pulpit  as  arranged  in  pon- 
tifical robes,  ministering  in  the  Church,  in  his  home,  in  his 
workshop,  every-wliere,  in  the  common,  divine  service  of 
an  evangelical  life."  He  uttered  these  sentences  :  "All 
are  divinely  called."  The  "  ministerial  call  is  essentially 
the  same  as  that  of-  other  Christian  functions."  "The 
government  of  the  Church  is  indeed  a  theocracy,  but 
in  no  other  sense  than  the  great  ethical  prin(;iples  of 
law  and  order  in  the  State  are  theocratic."  "  There  is 
no  other  basis  for  ecclesiastical  rights  and  government 
than  the  general  ethical  basis  of  all  government." 
"Church  government,  according  to  the  apostolic  Church, 
is  left  to  Christian  expediency — is  not  in  any  given 
form  obligatory— is  contingent."  "  It  is  a  well-ascer- 
tained fact,  admitted  among  the  best  ecclesiastical 
historians,  that  the  system  of  apostolic  Church  govern- 
ment was  copied  from  the  synagogue.  And  this  is  a, 
most  significant  fact.  There  were  two  ecclesiastical 
exponents  before  then.  There  was  the  Jewish  Church 
proper,  with  its  grand  Levitical  system,  ordained  of 
God  and  prescribed  by  Moses,  where  the  Aaronic 


9i        Principles  of  Church  Government. 


priesthood  officiated.  Besides  tliis,  or  secondary  to  it, 
was  the  synagogue,  or  provincial  vvorsliip.  Tlie  syna- 
gogue, witli  all  its  services,  is^mentioned  in  the  writings 
of  Pluses.  It  was  never  enjoined;  it  sprung  nj)  from 
local  expediency.  The  priests  officiated  at  tlie  temple; 
but  the  general  expounders  of  the  manuscript  law — the 
popular  preachers  of  the  day — were  in  the  synagogue." 
"The  primitive  Christians,  or  Jews,  had  been  accus- 
tomed to  certain  simple  ecclesiastical  usages,  founded 
in  practical  convenience,  but  without  a  word  of  divine 
prescription.  They  co])ied  them  into  their  new  or- 
ganization." "  Ordination  was  a  local  ceremony  of 
the  synagogue,  designating  men  to  office  by  a  decent 
form,  and,  I  repeat,  is  unmentioned  in  the  writings  of 
Moses."  "  The  government  of  the  primitive  Church 
was  not  co[)ied,  I  re-affirm,  from  the  Levitical  system; 
it  had  no  divine  prescription,  and  has  no  divine  in- 
junction. It  was  all  copied  from  the  Jewish  provincial 
customs,  and  simply  because  these  were  expedient, 
decent,  impressive;  Christianity  thus  started  untram- 
nieled  for  its  career  over  all  the  planet  and  down  all  the 
ages."  "  The  conclusion,  then,  is  this — that  Church 
government,  in  the  light  of  primitive  Christianity,  is  a 
matter  of  expediency.  This  generalization  is  historic- 
ally, logically,  and  indefeasibly  true."  "  We  preachers 
of  the  Gospel  are  only  the  executive  officers  of  the 
common  priesthood.  As  all  cannot  preach  together 
without  confusion,  the  Church  selects  those  most  com- 
petent, and  virtually  says:  'Go  you  up  and  do  the 
talking  in  the  pnlpit,  and  we  will  do  our  talking  in 
the  vestry,  the  class-meeting,  the  Sunday-school,  the 


DOCTBINE  OF  THE  PRIESTHOOD  OF  THE  PeOPLE.  95 

home.'  That  is  the  doctrine  of  the  priesthood  of  the 
people.  But  liere  comes  in  an  objection  that  I  ain  very- 
much  mortified  to  have  to  refer  to,  both  for  its  logic 
and  its  invasion  of  the  higliest  riglit  of  the  Christian 
life  by  an  unfounded  discrimination — the  objection 
that  the  ministry  lias  a  '  divine  call.'  To  be  sure  it  has. 
Don't  let  any  man  misunderstand  here  or  misrepresent 
me  elsewhere.  '  Woe  is  me  if  I  preach  not  the  Gospel,' 
said  Paul;  and  so  say  all  these  pastors  around  me  to- 
night. I  do  not  deny,  I  do  assert  the  divine  call 
to  the  ministry ;  but  those  who  assert  it  as  against 
this  reform  limit  the  idea  and  leave  its  length  and 
breadth  unasserted.  Tlie  Holy  Ghost  calls  me  to 
preaoli  in  the  Church;  therefore  am  I  to  govern  the 
Church?  I  don't  see  that  logic;  but  let  us  admit  it. 
Have  I,  the  preacher,  the  Holy  Ghost  alone  ?  Does 
the  Holy  Ghost  call  the  minister,  alone,  to  his  duty  ? 
Is  there  one  of  these  priests  of  the  people,  whose  right 
I  have  expounded,  who  has  not  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
cannot  have  it  in  as  blessed  a  plenitude  as  any  clerical 
priest,  high-priest,  bishop,  archbishop,  cardinal,  or  pope  ? 
Not  one  of  them,  if  I  understand  the  New  Testament. 
And  when  the  Christian  world  comes  again  to  this  posi- 
tion, when  the  idea  of  the  universal  and  royal  priesthood 
of  the  people  is  restored  to  the  consciousness  of  Chris- 
tendom, it  will  resume  its  apostolic  mightiness  and 
victories,  and  be  such  a  Church  as  Christ  designed  it  to 
be.  No  man  is  a  Christian  without  the  Holy  Ghost." 
"  On  the  logic  of  the  opponents  of  lay  delegation,  if  a 
call  to  the  ministry  implies  a  call  to  govern  the  Church, 
the  local  ministry  should  be  sent  to  the  Annual  and 


96 


PiiiNciPLEs  OF  Church  Government. 


General  Conferences,  and  our  Church  government 
would  virtually  be  in  the  hands  of  the  local  ministry  ! 
There  would  be  a  majority  of  about  one  third  of  the 
General  Cnnference  in  the  power  of  the  local  preachers. 
What  a  curious  state  of  things  that  would  be!  I  would 
not  wish  it — not  at  all.  I  do  not  want  the  local  minis- 
try to  control  the  Church.  I  do  not  want  the  traveling 
ministry  to  control  the  Church.  I  wish  the  Church  to 
control  itself — the  whole  royal  priesthood  governing, 
with  merely  distinctions  of  office  for  expediency,  but 
all  divinely  called.    That  is  tlie  doctrine." 

Over  against  this  position  as  the  ground-work  of 
Church  government  Dr.  Periine  urged  the  following 
distinct  propositions: 

"  1.  In  the  apostolic  Church  a  call  to  preach  was  a 
special  vocation  limited  and  isolated  in  the  name  of 
God. 

"  2.  Authority  to  rule  or  govern  in  the  apostolic 
Church  was  a  special  commission  limited  and  isolated 
in  the  name  of  God. 

"3.  These  two  differing  commissions  were  distinct- 
ively given  to  the  twelve  apostles  in  the  name  of  God. 

"  4.  The  commission  to  govern  in  the  primitive 
Church  was  conveyed  by  the  inspired  apostles  to  t\^e 
ordained  preaching  elders  who  succeeded  them  in  the 
name  of  God. 

"  5.  This  scriptural  rule  of  the  elders  called  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  approved  first  of  the  people  by  "show 
of  hands,"  and  secondly  of  the  presbytery  by  "  impo- 
sition of  hands,"  is  of  perpetual  obligation  and  is 
neither  hierarchy,  High  Churcliism,  papacy,  nor  eccle- 


Doctrine  of  the  Priesthood  of  the  People.  97 


siastical  oppression,  but  simply  New  Testament  tlieoc- 
racy,  genuine  Protestantism,  God-honoreil  Meihodism 
— Methodism  ^triumpliant  in  tlie  light  of  the  nine- 
teentli  century  and  in  keeping  with  the  free  spirit  of 
American  institutions." 

In  arguing  these  several  propositions  Dr.  Perrine  ac- 
knowledged the  beauty  of  the  doctrine  of  "  the  priest- 
hood of  God's  people."  "As  set  forth  in  the  Script- 
ures," said  he,  "the  doctrine  is  beautiful,  admirable, 
magnificent !  We  believe  in  it,  thank  God  for  it,  and 
sincerely  compassionate  the  soul  that  has  ever  caught 
a  solitary  glimpse  of  its  transcendent  excellence  who 
does  not  glory  in  it."  "  Would  God,"  he  added,  "  not 
only  that  all  the  Lord's  people  were  prophets,  but  that 
the  Lord  would  put  his  Spirit  upon  all  men  ;  that  all 
the  people  were  of  the  priesthood  of  believers!  " 

"But  here,"  he  observed,  "is  a  new  and  unheard-of 
doctrine,  and  startling  definitions  and  novel  applica- 
tions, denying  a  special  divine  call  to  the  holy  ministry, 
and  asserting  the  general  commission  of  the  priesthood 
of  the  people  to  do  all  the  '  talking,' '  teaching,' '  preach- 
ing,' and  '  governing  '  in  the  Church  of  God.  Its  nov- 
elty provokes  our  attention  and  curiosity.  Let  U'<  turn 
it  about  a  little,  and  justly  admeasure  its  jjretensions." 

Having  now  presented  the  main  questions  to  be  dis- 
cussed, and  the  occasion  for  their  discussion,  the  Editor 
will  here  step  aside.  In  all  succeeding  cliapters,  there- 
fore. Dr.  Perrine  is  the  first  person  speaking. 


98        Pkinciples  of  Cuukcu  Goveknmknt. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  SPECIAL  DIVINE  CALL  TO  THE  MINISTRY. 

While  the  specific  jiropositions  enumerated  in  the 
foregoing  chapter  do  not  commit  us  to  any  specified  form 
of  Church  government,  Episcopalian,  Presbyterian,  or 
even  of  Methodism  itself,  nevertheless  they  embrace  all 
the  general  principles  of  Church  polity  essential  to  this 
discussion.  Let  us  now  examine  the  first:  that  of  a 
special  divine  call  to  the  Christian  ministry. 

1.  It  is  proposed  by  the  proclamation  of  the  general 
"  priesthood  of  the  people  "  to  bar  the  admission  of  a 
special  priesthood  of  the  ministry.  The  coincidence 
and  harmony  of  the  general  and  special  under  the 
Mosaic  disj)eMsation  ajipear  to  be  forgotten  or  ignored. 
Sucli  texts  as  the  following  addressed  to  Israel  under 
the  old  regime  appear  never  to  have  been  read :  "  Now, 
therefore,  if  ye  will  obey  my  voice  indeed  and  keep 
my  covenant,  then  ye  shall  be  a  peculiar  treasure  unto 
me  above  all  people,  and  ye  shall  bo  unto  me  a  kingdom 
of  priests  and  a  holy  nation."  Exod.  xix,  5,  G.  Did  this 
priesthood  of  the  people  preclude  a  special  priesthood 
in  the  time  of  Moses  ?  Was  there  no  tribe  of  Levi  ? 
No  house  of  Aaron  ? 

The  modern  objection  to  a  special  priesthood  lacks 
the  charm  of  originality.  It  dates  much  farther  back 
than  the  dawn  of  the  present  discussion.    It  was  not 


Special  Divine  Call  to  the  Ministey.  99 


first  pronounced  in  New  Jersey.  "  Korah,  son  of  Izhar, 
Dathan  and  Abiram,  sous  of  Eliab,  and  On,  the  sons  of 
Pelelli,  raised  the  same  objection  against  a  "special 
priesthood,"  for  the  same  identical  reasons. 

"And  they  rose  up  before  Moses,  with  certain  of  the 
children  of  Israel,  two  hundred  and  fifty  princes  of  the 
assembly,  famous  in  the  congregation,  men  of  renown, 
and  they  gathered  themselves  togetlier  against  Moses  and 
against  Aaron,  and  said  unto  them,  Ye  take  too  much 
upon  you,  seeing  all  the  congregation  are  holy.  Where- 
fore, then,  lift  ye  uj)  yourselves  above  the  congregation 
of  the  Lord  ?  "  Num.  xvi,  2,  3.  Tliis  has  tlie  ring  of  so 
many  higli-sounding  speeches  and  sonorous  editorials 
on  "the  priesthood  of  the  people,"  that  we  find  it  diffi- 
cult on  reading  the  above  to  shake  off  the  impression 
that  all  this  must  have  occurred  in  the  noon  of  the 
nineteenth  century,  and  not  many  centuries  since — in 
the  days  of  the  first  grand  lay  movement  on  the  borders 
of  the  wilderness  of  Sin! 

Paul,  at  the  bi'eaking  of  the  Gospel  dispensation,  was 
obliged  to  eticounter  the  same  objection,  and  most  sat- 
isfactorily has  he  taken  care  of  it,  though  not  exactly 
in  the  style  in  which  its  first  advocates  were  disposed 
of;  yet  we  have  as  clear,  if  not  as  stunning,  an  exhibi- 
tion of  the  mind  of  God. 

In  1  Cor.  xii,  7,  the  great  apostle  tells  us  that  "  the 
manifestation  of  the  Spirit  is  given  to  every  man." 
This  is  his  doctrine  of  the  priesthood  of  the  people. 
But  what  does  he  infer?  That  there  is  no  difference 
among  us  but  of  office  for  convenience  ?  We  are 
"  happy  "  that  he  may  once  more  "  speak  for  himself:  " 


100      Pkinciples  of  Church  Gover-nment. 


"  Now  there  are  diversities  of  gifts,  but  the  same  Spirit. 
There  are  differences  of  administration,  but  the  same 
Lord  ;  and  there  are  diversities  of  operations,  but  it  is 
the  same  God  wlio  worketh  all  in  all.  .  .  .  For  to  one 
is  given  by  the  Spirit  the  word  of  wisdom,  and  in 
another  the  word  of  knowledge,  by  the  same  Spirit,  to 
another  the  working  of  miracles,  to  another  prophecy, 
to  another  discerning  of  spirits,"  etc.  But  all  these 
worketh  the  self-same  Spirit,  dividing,  limiting,  and 
isolating  "to  every  man  severally  as  he  will."  "God 
balh  set  some  in  the  Church,  first  apostles,  secondarily 
prophets,  thirdly  teachers,"  etc.  "Are  all  apostles? 
Are  all  prophets?    Are  all  teachers?" 

If  the  views  of  the  extremists  respecting  the  bearing 
of  the  doctrine  of  the  "  priesthood  of  the  people"  are  cor- 
rect, the  passage  should  read  about  as  follows:  "'Now 
there  are  no  diversities  of  gifts,  but  it  is  the  same  Spirit; 
there  are  no  differences  of  administration,  for  it  is  the 
same  Lord;  and  there  are  no  diversities  of  operation,  for 
it  is  the  same  God  who  worketh  all  in  all.  For  to  every 
one  is  given,  by  the  Spirit,  the  word  of  wisdom,  and  to 
every  one  the  word  of  knowledge  by  the  same  Spirit,  and 
to  every  one  the  working  of  miracles,  to  every  one  proph- 
ecy, to  everyone  discerning  of  spirits,  etc.;  for  all  these 
worketh  the  self-same  Spirit,  not  dividing,  limiting,  (u- 
isolating  to  any  man,  'severally  as  he  will.'  God  hath 
set  every  one  in  the  Church  as  apostles,  prophets, 
teachers,  etc.  All  are  apostles;  all  are  prophets;  all  are 
teachers,  etc."  Away  with  such  an  interpretation  of  the 
eternal  Word !  A  doctrine  thus  expounded  has  no  place 
between  the  lids  of  the  sacred  book. 


Special  Divine  Call  to  the  Ministry.  101 


In  another  letter  Paul  reiterates  the  doctrine  of  "  or- 
ders" in  the  Churcli  with  sacred  emphasis.  Of  Him 
"who  ascended  up  on  high"  it  is  affirmed  that  "he 
gave  some  apostles,  and  some  prophets,  and  some  evan- 
gelists, and  some  pastors  and  teachers,  for  the  perfect- 
ing of  the  saints,"  etc.  Eph.  iv,  11.  "Having,  then, 
gifts  differing  according  to  the  grace  given  unto  us, 
whether  prophecy,  let  us  prophesy  according  to  the 
proportion  of  faith,  or  ministry,  let  us  wait  on  our  rnin- 
i.-tering,  or  he  that  teacheth  on  teaching."  Rom.  xii, 
6,  Y.  Would  our  opponents  infer  from  these  texts  that 
the  ministerial  call  was  not  "  limitcl  "  or  "isolated?" 
That  "  the  preachers  of  the  Gospel "  in  these  days  of 
"primitive  equality "  were  "merely  the  executive  offi- 
cers of  the  common  priesthood?"  JMethodists  will, 
doubtless,  for  some  time  to  come,  continue  to  believe 
that  the  exact  nature  of  any  specific  "call"  will  be  as 
the  "  gifts,"  "  diftering,"  and  the  specific  cliaracter  of 
the  "gift,"  as  the  "grace  given,"  and  yet,  as  hearty 
indorsers  of  the  true  doctrine  of  the  "priesthood  of 
the  people,"  they  are  disposed  to  believe  that  "  the 
grace  of  God  that  bringeth  salvation  hath  appeared 
unto  all  men;"  that  "the  manifestation  of  the  Spirit  is 
given  to  every  man,"  and  that  "  according  to  their 
faith"  "laymen  may  have  the  Holy  Ghost  in  as  blessed 
a  plenitude  as  clerical  priest,  high-priest,  bishop,  arch- 
bishop, cardinal,  or  pope;"  and  most  Methodists,  we 
think,  will  be  quite  likely  to  conclude  that  it  is  not  the 
quantity  of  the  Spirit  given,  but  the  specific  character 
of  the  "  call,"  that  constitutes  the  nature  and  limits — the 
full  measure — ot  our  several  responsibilities. 


102       Principles  of  Church  Government. 


"  Does  the  Holy  Ghost  call  the  minister  alone  to  his 
duty  ?  "  Of  course  not.  The  Holy  Ghost  will,  doubt- 
less, impress  upon  the  mind  of  every  spiritual  man 
at  least  the  following  important  particulars:  1.  That 
his  calling  should  be  pursued  "  honestly  "  (Rom.  xii, 
17);  2.  "Religiously"  (Rom.  xii,  11);  3.  "Diligent- 
ly" (Prov.  xxii,  29);  4.  "Persistently"  (1  Cor.  vii, 
20);  5.  "Peaceably"  (1  Thess.  iv,  11);  that  it  should 
be  the  calling  in  which  he  could  accomplish  most  for 
God,  the  Church,  his  family  and  himself,  and  espe- 
cially one  for  which  he  had  most  natural  adaptations 
and  qualifications.  But  can  any  deny  that  some  men, 
in  their  exceeding  versatility,  have  equal  adaptations 
and  qualifications  for  a  great  diversity  of  callings?  that 
they  would  excel  in  whatever  they  should  attempt? 
Will  any  man  aflSrm  that  the  Holy  Ghost  would 
call  this  man  or  that  among  the  laity  to  this  or  that 
particular  profession  so  peculiarly  and  urgently  that 
he  must  say  as  emphatically  as  ever  St.  Paul  did,  "  Woe 
is  me  if  I "  drive  not  the  plow,  plane,  pegs,  stage,  or  the 
steam-liorse  ?  Woe  is  me  if  I  peddle  not  pumps,  pans, 
pills,  or  patent  rights ?  Preposterous!  Yet  this  seems 
to  follow  logically  from  the  position  that  "all  are  divine- 
ly called,  and  that  'the  call '  to  the  Christian  ministry  is 
essentially  the  same  as  to  other  Christian  vocations." 

2.  The  chief  stumbling  stone  in  the  way  of  this  mod- 
ern logic  is  the  entire  misapprehension  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  priesthood  of  the  people  as  set  forth  in  the  Script- 
ures. As  we  understand  these  extremists,  they  urge 
this  "priesthood"  in  favor  of  this  most  singular  postu- 
late: that  all  the  laity — all  church  members,  of  course — 


Special  Divine  Call  to  the  Ministey. 


103 


all  men,  women,  and  children,  are  divinely  constituted 
"teachers"  in  the  Church  of  God! 

Has  it  never  occurred  to  our  able  advocates  of  the 
"  pontifical "  prerogatives  of  the  people  that  "  teach- 
ing "  was  merely  incidental  to  the  sacred  "  priest- 
hood?" that  it  constituted  no  part  of  their  proper 
functional  service?  During  the  whole  period  of  the 
"  theocracy  "  teaching  by  the  priests  was  quite  as  ex- 
ceptional and  as  unofficial  as  were  the  "  sacrifices  "  by 
the  prophets  Samuel  and  Elijah,  or  the  "  offering  of 
burnt  offerings  "  by  the  kings  David  and  Solomon.  In 
later  times,  when  ignorance  aboundeil  to  an  amazing 
extent,  it  might  have  been  necessary  for  the  priests  to 
have  explained  to  a  gross  and  benighted  people  the 
simple  significance  of  the  various  sacrifices  and  services 
of  their  ritual. 

The  duty  of  instructing  the  people  in  the  precepts  of 
the  law  of  God  was  at  first  devolved  by  express  com- 
mand upon  the  elders  of  Israel  or  upon  the  heads  of 
families  (Deut.  vi,  7),  and  afterward  was  taken  up  by 
the  scribes,  or  "  sons  of  the  prophets,"  whose  ideal  was 
well  expressed  in  the  declaration  of  the  inspired  Ezra 
(vii,  10),  "to  seek  the  law  of  the  Lord  and  do  it,  and 
to  teach  in  Israel  statutes  and  judgments."  "  Upon  the 
whole,"  snys  Godwin  {Jeioish  Antiquities,  p.  240),  "  the 
scribes  were  the  preaching  clergy  among  the  Jews;  and 
while  the  priest  attended  the  sacrifices,  they  (the 
scribes)  instructed  the  people." 

The  priests  and  Levites,  during  the  continuance  of 
the  "  theocracy,"  were  ministers  both  to  the  Church 
and  State,  but  tliey  were  not  like  the  "  priests  "  under 


104      Principles  of  Church  Government. 


the  Gospel,  teachers  of  the  people  ;  not  being  instruct- 
ors of  the  people,  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  term, 
"  they  were  not  required  to  dwell  in  the  cities  and  vil- 
lages occupied  by  the  rest  of  the  community,  but  dwelt 
in  cities  of  their  own,  a  circumstance  which  of  itself 
proves  that  they  were  not  public  instructors." 

Yet  our  opponents  affirm  that  "  we  preachers  of  the 
Gospel  are  but  the  executive  officers  of  the  common 
priesthood.  As  all  cannot  preach  together  without  con- 
fusion, the  Church  selects  those  most  competent,  and 
virtually  says,  'Go  up  and  do  the  talking  in  the  pulpit, 
and  we  will  do  our  talking,'  "  etc.! 

Equally  preposterous  is  the  cliiim  of  the  democratic 
rights  of  government  in  the  Church  of  God,  based  on 
the  scriptural  doctrine  of  the  "  priesthood  "  of  the  peo- 
ple, wliich  claim  we  may  be  allowed  especially  to  notice 
just  here. 

Under  the  old  economy  the  Levitical  caste  never 
claimed  to  govern  the  nation.  Levi  was  not  the  ruling 
tribe;  Aaron  was  not  the  ruling  spirit.  Yet  the  effort 
is  now  made  to  found  the  government  of  the  Church 
upon  the  priesthood  of  the  people.  "  We  wish  the 
Church,"  says  Dr.  Stevens,  "  to  control  itself.  The 
whole  royal  priesthood  governing  with  merely  distinc- 
tions of  office  for  expediency,  but  all  divinely  called  ! 
That  is  the  doctrine  !  !  " 

"All  divinely  called."  True— but  to  what?  To 
"teach"  or  "preach?"  The  priests  of  old  were  offi- 
cially neither  "  teachers  "  nor  "  preachers."  To  govern  ? 
"  The  priests "  never  claimed  nor  were  intended  to 
govern.    Called  to  what?    "To  draw  near"  to  the 


Special  Divine  Call  to  the  Ministry.  105 


divine  presence.  Such  is  the  significant  etymology  of 
the  Hebrew  and  Arabic  terms  for  "  priest,"  and  such  is 
tlie  gh)rious  calling  of  the  priesthood  of  the  people. 
Not  to  the  drudgery  of  teaching  or  the  thankless  task  of 
governing,  but  to  draw  near  to  the  glory  of  God — to 
enter  through  the  veil  of  a  Saviour's  torn  flesh  the  holy 
of  holies  to  present  in  their  own  behalf  the  "Sacrifice 
offered  once  for  all."  This  is  the  high  and  holy  "call- 
ing of  God  in  Christ  Jesus  "  to  all  the  people. 

May  we  not  now  courteously  lend  a  hand  to  assist  our 
logician  across  a  slight  flaw  in  his  argument  ?  He 
urges  his  objections  thus:  "The  Holy  Ghost  calls  me 
to  preach  in  the  Church  ;  therefore  I  am  to  govern  the 
Church  ;  I  don't  see  that  logic."  The  Holy  Ghost  calls 
the  people  to  a  "  royal  priesthood  "  in  the  Church,  "  to 
draw  near  to  God;"  therefore!  they  are  "all  called" 
to  preach  in  the  Church — all  called  to  govern  in  the 
Church.    Does  he  "  see  "  this  logic  ? 


106      Pkinciples  of  Church  Government. 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE  SPECIAL  COMMISSION  TO  GOVERN. 

The  doctrine  of  the  priesthood  of  the  people  having 
been  shown  to  be  utterly  irrelevant  to  the  "  callings  " 
of  either  "  teaching  "  or  "  governing,"  we  now  proceed 
to  the  discussion  of  the  principle  of  expediency  in 
Church  government. 

While  not  disposed  to  question  the  validity  of  the 
principle  when  applied  to  those  less  important  details 
that  vary  to  a  certain  extent  the  different  Church  econ- 
omies of  Christendom,  we  hope  to  show  that,  when  ap- 
plied to  the  fundamental  principles  of  Church  govern- 
ment, it  is  far  from  being  satisfactorily  established;  its 
doulitful  empire  being  by  far  too  narrowly  and  sharply 
circumscribed  by  the  unwavering  lines  traced  by  the 
pen  of  inspiration — the  finger  of  God.  The  generous 
nntures  of  our  distinguished  advocates,  however,  have 
endowed  this  principle  with  boundless  empire  and  un- 
limited authority,  "  The  government  of  the  primitive 
Church,"  they  tell  us,  "had  no  divine  prescription  and 
has  no  divine  injunction.  It  was  all  copied  from  the 
Jewish  provincial  customs,  and  simply  because  they 
were  expedient,  decent,  and  impressive."  And  again: 
"  The  conclusion,  then,  is  this,  that  Church  government 
in  the  light  of  primitive  Christianity  is  a  matter  of  ex- 
pediency.   This  generalization  is  historically,  logically, 


TiiK  Special  Commission  to  Govern.  107 


and  indefeasibly  true."  The  arguments  by  which  they 
would  fortify  so  extensive  a  territory  are  chiefly  these  : 
(«)  "  The  government  of  the  primitive  Church  was  not 
copied  from  the  Levitical  system,"  "  ordained  of  God 
and  prescribed  by  Moses."  (b)  The  system  of  apostolic 
Church  government  "  was  copied  from  the  synagogue" 
which  is  "  unmentioned  in  all  the  writings  of  Moses," 
and  "  never  enjoined."  "  The  primitive  Christians  and 
Jews  had  been  accustomed  to  certain  simple  ecclesias- 
tical usages  founded  in  practical  convenience,  but  with- 
out a  word  of  divine  prescription."  "  They  copied  them 
into  their  organization." 

Let  us  look  inquiringly  into  the  merits  of  these  in 
their  order : 

(a)  "  The  government  of  the  primitive  Church  was  not 
copied  from  the  Levitical  system  ordained  of  God  and 
prescribed  by  Moses,"  and  therefore  it  had  "no  divine 
prescription,  and  has  no  divine  injunction  ! "  The  fault 
of  this  logic  is  apparent  at  a  glance,  the  premise  being  by 
far  too  narrow  for  the  exceedini^  breadth  of  the  conclu- 
sion. Was  nothing  besides  the  Levitical  system  ever  "en- 
joined of  God  ?  "  One  of  these  advocates,  within  five 
minutes  after  he  had  named  this  argument,  gave  a  very 
conclusive  refutation  of  it  in  referring  to  the  priesthood 
of  Christ.  "  St.  Paul,"  he  says,  "  pronounced  Jesus  Christ 
the  Iligh-priest,  yet  St.  Paul  was  guarded  lest  it  might 
be  thought  he  had  some  reference  to  Levitical  author- 
ity or  Jewish  precedent.  He  argues  that  Jesus  was  not 
a  High-priest  after  the  order  of  Aaron,  but  that  of  Mel- 
chizedek,"  and  so,  Christ  not  having  Levitical  authority, 
was  without  authority,  the  conditions  of  his  priesthood 


108 


Principles  of  Church  Goverxmext. 


not  having  been  "  prescribed  by  Moses!  "  Logic  of  the 
nineteenth  century  ! 

The  second  argument  is  equally  fallacious.  "The 
system  of  apostolic  Church  government  was  copied 
from  the  synagogue,  unuientioned  in  all  the  writings  of 
Moses,  and  never  enjoined."  *Therefore  this  "coi)y- 
ing,"  though  done  by  the  Saviour  himself  and  his  in- 
spired apostles,  is  founded  solely  on  the  principle  of 
expediency,  and  has  no  binding  authority  on  the  ages 
that  follow  !  We  propose,  in  answer,  both  to  question 
the  premise  and  to  disprove  the  conclusion. 

The  premise  is  an  untenable  assumption,  or  rather  a 
trinity  of  assumptions:  (1)  That  the  synagogue  is  "un- 
mentioned  in  all  tlie  writings  of  Moses;"  (2)  that  it 
was  "  never  enjoined  ;  "  and  (8)  that  the  government  of 
the  apostolic  Church  was  all  "copied  from  the  Jewish 
synagogue."  Having  disposed  of  these,  we  shall  notice 
the  more  amazing  assumption  in  the  conclusion  that  the 
act  of  Christ  and  his  apostles  in  transferring  some  of 
the  offices  and  ceremonies  of  the  synagogues  into  the 
Christian  Church  is  to  be  regarded  as  simply  an  expe- 
dient for  the  times,  and  of  no  binding  force  whatever 
on  those  who  should  come  after. 

1.  We  are  told  that  the  synagogue  is  "unmentioned 
in  all  the  writings  of  Moses,"  "  and  never  enjoined." 
We  propose  to  show  these  statements  to  be  erroneous. 

In  a  little  book  entitled  Church  Polity,  by  Dr. 
Stevens,  written,  as  he  tells  us,  in  the  daj's  of  his  "  pu- 
pilage," we  find  substantial  information  "  in  the  argu- 
ments of  the  old  authorities  sincerely  re-uttered  by 
him."   Here  the  author  informs  us  that  the  "  synagogue 


Tiiu:  Special  Commission'  to  Govkun.  109 


was  a  local  aiul  conventional  institution,  founded  on 
not  a  single  command,  except  the  general  one  con- 
tained in  Lev.  xxiii,  3."  Here,  tlien,  it  is  clearly  ad- 
mitted that  the  institution  is  at  least  founded  on  a 
"general  command  "  of  the  Mosaic  law.  This  is  en- 
couraging. But  this  "  general  command  "  is  in  fact 
most  specific.  "Six  days  shall  work  be  done,  but  the 
seventh  is  the  sabbath  of  rest,  a  holy  convocation, 
niikni  kudhesh  (of  synagogue).  Ye  shall  do  no  work. 
It  is  the  sabbath  in  (or  aniDiig)  all  your  dwellings,"  or, 
as  the  Septuagint's  text  may  be  rendered,  "  In  all  your 
dwelling  places,  \illages,  settlements,  or  colonies." 

"The  word  mUcra,  which  we  render  a  convocation," 
says  Godwin,  "seems  more  naturally  to  import  a 2)l<ice 
of  public  tcorship  in  which  the  people  assembled  than 
the  assembly  itself.  As  in  the  following  passage  in 
Isaiah:  'And  the  Lord  will  create  upon  every  dwell- 
ing-place of  Mount  Zion  and  upon  her  assemblies 
i^TnikraJeJia),  a  cloud  and  smoke  by  day,  and  the  shin- 
ing of  a  flame  by  night,'  chap,  iv,  in  which  there  is  a 
manifest  allusion  to  the  tabernacle  whereon  the  cloud 
and  pillar  of  fire  rested  in  the  wilderness.  Exod.  xi,  38. 
And  what,  then,  could  these  niikra  kodhesli  be  but 
synagogues,  or  editices  of  public  worship?"  * 

These  niikni  kodliesh  may  be  but  a  Hebrew  synonym 
for  the  Hebrew  words  inonijnad-heel,  which  are  appro- 
priately rendered  in  Psa.  Ixxiv,  8,  "the  synagogue  of 
God,"  and  are  so  qualified  by  the  words  that  precede 
and  follow  as  to  be  by  no  possible  means  referred  to 
the  temple  at  Jerusalem,  that  existed  before  this  psalra 
•  Jewish  Antiquities,  p.  318. 


110      Principles  op  Church  Government. 


was  written  ;  for  the  psalmist  laments  that  daring  Is- 
rael's captivity  their  enemies  had  burned  up  "  all  the 
synagogues  of  God  in  the  land."  How  was  the  Sabbath 
to  be  kept,  and  especially  these  convocations  to  be  ob- 
served by  Israel,  if  there  were  to  be  no  more  than  one 
consecrated  place  ?  Is  it  not  clear  that  the  "  general 
command"  is  a  specific  injunction  to  hold  holy  convo- 
cations, or  "  synagogues,"  on  every  Sabbath  day,  in  or 
among  all  their  dwellings  throughout  the  entire  land  ? 
How  preposterous  the  aflirmation  that  this  institutiim  is 
"never  mentioned  in  the  writings  of  Moses." 

2.  Can  it  be  more  satisfactorily  shown  that  it  was 
"  never  enjoined  ?  "  Can  it  be  proven  that  these  assem- 
blies or  synagogues — for  the  terms  are  synonymous — 
were  not  immediately  organized  under  the  immediate 
supervision  of  God  ?  If  that  very  sweeping  assertion, 
that  it  was  "  never  enjoined,"  is  to  be  made  good,  they 
must  do  this  and  much  more.  They  must  show  that 
God  at  no  subsequent  period  has  ever  intervened  for 
the  regulation  of  the  religious  services  instituted  by 
divine  command. 

The  silence  that  follows  touching  these  convocations 
no  more  disproves  their  existence  than  it  does  that  of 
the  Sabbath  on  which  they  were  held ;  for  the  sacred 
day  is  not  alluded  to  during  a  period  of  five  hundred 
and  fifty-four  years,  nor  the  tabernacle  itself  for  a 
period  of  three  hundred  years.  Will  these  advocates 
lift  the  curtains  of  that  silence,  and  by  tracing  dis- 
tinctly the  track  of  divine  administrations  show  us 
beyond  a  question  that  the  services  of  the  synagogue 
were  not  during  that  oblivious  period  "divinely  en- 


The  Special  Commission  to  Goverst.  Ill 

joined  ?"  When  a  flash  of  inspiration  does  for  a  mo- 
ment light  up  the  scene  of  these  assemblies  ('2  Kings 
iv,  23),  M'hat  is  the  character  of  the  picture  ?  A  de- 
mocracy? A  convention  of  delegates  enacting  laws 
on  the  basis  of  expediency,  decency,  or  convenience  ? 
No,  sir !  "  The  man  of  God "  is  the  aggregating 
center. 

Can  it  be  proved  that  Elisha,  the  inspired  prophet 
of  God,  did  not  in  the  name  of  heaven  make  all  need- 
ful "  rules  and  regulations  "  for  the  government  of  these 
implied  assemblies  on  the  "sabbath,  or  new  moons?" 

Look  at  the  scenes  given  further  on  :  "the  elders 
of  Israel "  coming  "  to  inquire  of  tiie  Lord  "  and  sitting 
at  the  feet  of  the  prophet  Ezekiel.  Ezek.  xx,  1.  Hear 
the  people  saying  every  one  to  his  brother,  "  Come,  I 
pray  you,  and  hear  what  is  the  word  that  cometh  forth 
from  the  Lord.  And  they  came  unto  thee  as  the  peo- 
ple cometh,  and  they  sit  before  thee  as  my  people, 
and  they  hear  thy  words."  Ezek.  xxxiii,  30,  31.  In 
this  manner  elders  and  people  were  accustomed  "  to  in- 
quire of  the  Lord,"  and  can  any  one  show  that  the  reg- 
ulations of  the  services  of  the  synagogue  were  never 
the  subject  of  inquiry  on  the  part  of  the  people  and  of 
"injunction  "  on  the  part  of  the  Lord? 

Look  at  the  interest  Jehovah  has  manifested  in  his 
people  when  deprived  through  captivity  of  the  priv- 
ileges of  the  temple  service.  "Thus  saith  the  Lord 
God,  Although  I  have  cast  them  off  among  the  heathen, 
and  although  I  have  scattered  them  among  the  coun- 
tries, yet  will  I  be  to  them  as  a  little  sanctuary  in  the 
countries  where  they  shall  come."  Ezek.  xi,  16. 


112      Principles  of  Church  Government. 


Will  any  one  point  out  the  especial  propriety  of  this 
beautiful  metaphor  if  this  "  little  sanctuary"  or  "syna- 
gogue," as  most  authorities  interpret  it,  had  not  the 
especial  sanction  of  the  Lord  of  hosts  ?  Stronger  lan- 
guage expressive  of  the  divine  interest  in  the  institution 
of  tlie  synagogue  could  scarcely  be  emi)loyod.  Deity 
himself  should  be  as  a  miniature  temple — for  such 
were  the  synagogues — Josephus  frequently  calling  the 
temple  and  the  synagogue  by  the  same  name,  "  leron  " 

(VEQOV).* 

Bishop  Stillingfleet  says  the  first  model  of  the  syna- 
gogue government  is  with  a  great  deal  of  probability 
derived  from  the  schools  of  the  prophets  and  the  gov- 
ernment thereof,  f  We  have  a  picture  of  one  of  these 
"schools"  in  1  Sam.  xix,  20.  What  was  the  "govern- 
ment thereof?"  "And  Saul  sent  messengers  to  take 
David,  and  when  they  saw  the  company  of  the  prophets 
prophesying,  and  Samuel  standing  as  ajjpointed  over 
t/ien),  the  Spirit  of  God  was  upon  the  messengers  of 
San],  and  they  also  prophesied."  Who  will  prove  that 
God  did  not  make  that  "appointment;"  that,  according 
to  our  American  ideas,  Samuel  was  popularly  elected 
"decently,"  "conveniently,"  "expediently,"  and  "con- 
tingently?" 

Dean  Stanley  says  that  these  schools  "  were  org  m- 
ized  under  Samuel,"  "  who  stood  appointed  over  them," 
and  that  "  under  the  shadow  of  his  name  the  prophets 
dwelt  as  in  a  charmed  circle,"  etc.J 

Who  were  "  the  masters  of  assemblies,  which  are 

*  Wars  of  the  Jews,  Book  VI,  x,  1,  and  Bonk  V[I,  iii.  3. 
f  Jrenicum,  p.  282.  X  J<^wish  Church,  p.  4-iO. 


TnK  Special  Commission  to  Govern. 


113 


given  under  one  shepherd,"  mentioned  Eccl.  xii,  11  ? 
Who  will  prove  that  these  were  not  the  elders  "given  " 
of  God  under  one  pastor  or  angel  of  the  synagogue, 
and  all  under  one  great  Shepherd  ? 

"And  Ezra  the  scribe  stood  upon  a  pulpit  of 
wood,  which  they  had  made  for  the  purpose  ;  and  be- 
side him  stood  Mattathiah,  and  Shema,  and  Anaiah, 
and  Urijah,  and  Ililkiah,  and  Maaseiah,  on  his  right 
hand ;  and  on  his  left  hand,  Pedaiah,  and  Mishael,  and 
Malchiah,  and  Hashum,  and  Ilashbadana,  Zechariah, 
and  Meshullara.  And  Ezra  opened  the  book  in  the 
sight  of  all  the  people;  (for  he  was  above  all  the  peo- 
ple); and  when  be  opened  it,  all  the  people  stood  np: 
and  Ezra  blessed  the  Lord,  the  great  God.  And  all  the 
people  answered,  Amen,  Ainen,  with  lifting  up  their 
hands:  and  they  bowed  their  heads,  and  worshiped 
the  Lord  with  their  faces  to  the  ground.  Also  Joshua, 
and  Bani,  and  Sherebiah,  Jaraiii,  Akkub,  Shabbethai, 
Hodijah,  Maaseiah,  Kelita,  Azariah,  Jozabad,  ITanan, 
Pelaiah,  and  the  Levites,  caused  the  people  to  un- 
derstand the  law:  and  the  people  stood  in  their  place. 
So  they  read  in  the  book  in  the  law  of  God  distinctly, 
and  gave  the  sense,  and  caused  them  to  understand  the 
reading."    Neh.  viii,  4-8. 

Stillingfleet  says:  "About  the  time  of  Christ  we 
find  synagogues  of  very  great  request  among  the  Jews, 
God  so  disposing  it  that  the  moral  part  of  his  service 
should  be  more  frequented  now  the  ceremonial  was 
about  expiring,  and  by  those  places  so  erected  it  might 
be  more  facile  and  easy  for  the  apostles  to  dispense  the 
Gospel  by  preaching  it  in  those  places  to  which  it  was 
8 


lli      Principles  of  Church  Government, 


the  custom  of  tlie  Jews  to  resort."  *  Who  will  under- 
take to  prove  the  contrary? 

But,  for  the  purpose  of  penetrating  directly  to  the 
very  quick  of  this  famous  principle,  let  us  for  the 
jiioment  grant  the  utmost  that  any  radical  advocate 
could  possibly  claim  touching  the  casual  origin  of  tlie 
Jewish  synagogue,  and  the  transference  of  its  entii'e 
ritual  and  polity,  bodily,  into  the  primitive  Church, 
determining  thereby,  even  to  the  niinutim,  the  forms  of 
its  worship  and  government.  Would  these  facts  for- 
ever bar  the  claim  that  these  "  forms  "  might  still  be 
divinely  prescribed  and  divinely  enjoined?  If  not, 
then  all  that  might  be  said  in  proof  of  the  posi- 
tion, that  the  synagogue  was  not  "  mentioned  in  the 
■writings  of  Moses,"  and  of  the  worship  and  economy 
of  the  piiiuitive  Church  being  "copied  simply  from 
the  Jewish  provincial  customs,"  falls  by  its  own 
specific  irrelevancy  entirely  out  of  the  argument  as 
worthless. 

We  ])ropose  now  to  show  that  if  these  alleged  facts 
bar  the  divine  authority  of  primitive  Church  govern- 
ment, similar  facts  invalidate,  to  a  very  considerable 
extent,  the  claim  that  the  Levitical  system  was  "  di- 
vinely prescribed  and  divinely  enjoined."  Let  us  take 
tlie  construction  of  the  tabernacle  for  an  illustration. 
Kvory  one  will  agree  with  us  that  all  its  appointments 
w'irYQ  of  divine  authority.  "  And  look  that  thou  make 
tliem  after  their  pattern  showed  thee  in  the  mount." 
Exod.  XXV,  40.  "  As  Moses  was  admonished  of  God 
when  he  was  about  to  make  the  tabernacle,  for  see, 
*Iren.,  p.  261. 


The  Special  Commission  to  Govern.  115 


saith  he,  that  thou  make  all  things  according  to  the 
pattern  showed  thee  in  the  mount."   Heb.  viii,  5. 

But  will  any  man  deny  that  many  portions  of  that 
divine  pattern  had  been  anticipated  in  tlie  peculiar 
feature  of  Egyptian  temples  with  which  Moses  and 
Israel  are  more  or  less  familiar,  or  that  these  trans- 
fers are  not  made  by  divine  authority  ?  The  denial  of 
either  would  be  equally  hazardous.  The  Scriptures 
■which  we  have  quoted  determine  the  latter,  wliile  every 
authority  in  the  antiquities  of  Egypt  will  make  evident 
the  former. 

Our  space  will  only  permit  us  to  glance  at  the  wide- 
spread "primeval  symbolism"  from  which  very  many 
of  the  outlines  of  that  pattern  were  evidently  drawn. 
"  So  far  from  laboring,"  says  one  authority,  "  to  prove, 
at  the  price  of  ignoring  or  destroying  facts,  that  every 
thing  till  then  was  unknown,  we  shall  as  little  expect 
to  find  it  so  as  to  see  in  Hebrew  a  new  and  heaven- 
born  language,  spoken  for  the  first  time  on  Sinai, 
written  for  the  first  time  on  the  two  tables  of  the 
covenant. 

"  The  thought  of  a  graduated  sanctity  like  that  of 
the  outer  court,  the  holy  place,  the  holy  of  holies, 
had  its  counterpart,  often  the  same  number  of  stages, 
in  the  structure  of  Egyptian  temples.*  The  interior 
adytum  was  small  in  proportion  to  the  rest  of  the 
building,  and  commonly,  as  in  the  tabernacle,!  was  at 
the  western  end, J  and  was  unlighted  from  without. 

"  In  the  adytum,  often,  at  least,  was  the  sacred  ark, 
the  culminating  i^oint  of  holiness,  containing  the  highest 

*  Bahr,  Symb.,  i,  216.    f  Joscplius,  AiiL,  ii,  6,  §  3.    ^  Spencer,  iii,  2. 


liG     PiiiNciPLES  OP  CnuECH  Government. 


and  most  mysterious  symbols,  Avinged  figures,  gener- 
ally like  those  of  the  cherubim,*  the  emblems  of  sta- 
bility and  life.  Here  were  outward  points  of  resem- 
blance. Of  all  the  elements  of  Egyptian  worship  this 
was  one  which  could  be  transferred  with  least  hazard, 
and  with  most  gain.  .  .  .  When  we  ask  what  gave  the 
ark  its  holiness  we  are  led  at  once  to  the  infinite  differ- 
ence, the  great  gulf  between  the  two  systems."  f 

These  facts  cannot  be  gainsaid.  What  will  our 
radical  advocates  do  with  them?  Or,  rather,  what  will 
not  these  ugly  facts  do  with  their  pretty  theories  of 
expediency  founded  on  the  transfer  of  "the  conven- 
ient and  decent  provincial  customs  of  the  Jews  "  into 
the  service  and  government  of  the  primitive  Church  ? 

Let  it  be  once  established  that  these  transfers  were 
made  by  tlie  divine  authority  of  Christ  and  his 
inspired  apostles,  and  these  unwelcome  facts  must 
smash  into  very  unpleasant  and  uncomfortably  close 
quarters  the  whole  inflated  system  of  expediency.  For 
if  God  could  even  incorporate  in  the  divinely  ordained 
patterns  of  Sinai  many  of  the  pre-existing  features  of 
heathen  temples,  without  impairing  in  the  least  the  obli- 
gation of  Israel  to  receive  them  as  "divinely  prescribed 
and  divinely  enjoined,"  how  much  more  are  we  not 
obligated  to  receive  from  the  hand  of  God  as  "  divinely 
prescribed  and  divinely  enjoined"  that  system  of 
government  which  embodies  only  those  features  of 
Church  polity  which  have  been  developed  in  institu- 
tions of  his  own  appointment  (Lev.  xxiii,  3)  among  his 

*Ayilkinson,  Ancient  Egypf,  v,  275:  Kcudriuk's  Eijijpt,  i,  p.  460. 
t  Smith's  Bid.  of  Bible,  art.  "  Tubernnclc." 


The  Special  Commission  to  Govern.  117 


o^m  chosen  people,  and  under  the  ininicdiate  super- 
vision of  his  own  inspired  teachers,  tlie  prophets. 
1  Sara,  xix,  20;  2  Kings  iv,  23  ;  E/.ek.  xx,  1. 

"  We  are  to  notice,"  says  Stillingfleet,  "  how  much 
our  Saviour  in  the  New  Testa^nent  did  delight  to  take 
the  received  practices  among  the  Jews  only  with  such 
alterations  of  thera  as  were  suitable  to  the  nature  and 
doctrine  of  Christianity,  as  hath  been  abundantly 
manifested  by  many  learned  men,  about  rites  of  the 
Lord's  supper  taken  fiom  the  post  coenam  (after  the 
supper)  among  the  Jews;  the  use  of  baptism,  used  in 
initiating  proselytes;  ex-communication,  from  their 
putting  out  of  the  synagogue."  "As  to  which  ihing," 
he  continues,  "it  may  be  observed  that  those  rites 
which  our  Saviour  transplanted  into  the  Gospel  soil 
■were  not  such  as  were  originally  found  in  the  Mosaic 
law."  * 

Dare  any  man  among  us  affirm  that  baptism,  the 
Lord's  sujiper,  etc.,  "are  in  no  given  form  obligatory?" 
that  they  have  "  no  divine  prescription  and  no  divine 
injunction?"  And  yet  every  argument, fact,  and  prin- 
ciple with  which  our  "  reformers  "  Avould  obscure  the 
divine  origin  and  binding  authority  of  primitive 
Church  government  bears  with  equal  force  against 
"the  divine  prescription  and  divine  injunction"  of  the 
sacraments  of  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper.  For 
what  our  Saviour  did  in  the  transference  of  the  latter, 
inspired  apostles  commissioned  "  to  bind  or  loose,"  did 
for  the  former;  they  transplanted  the  names  and  offices 
of  "deacon"  and  "elder"  from  the  synagogue,  or 

*  Iren.,  p.  264 


118      Principles  of  Church  Government. 


rather  from  the  old  dispensation  for  the  special  admin- 
istration of  finance  and  the  general  supervision  of  all 
the  interests  of  the  Chnrch,  temporal  and  spiritual,  and 
that  we  may  know  that  their  action  was  ratified, 
"  bound  in  heaven,"  we  have  the  express  declaration  of 
the  infallible  word  that  "  God  hath  set  governments  " 
"  in  the  Church."  1  Cor.  xii,  28.  It  was  not  "conven- 
ience," "  expediency,"  "  decency,"  or  "  contingency," 
but  "  God." 

If  ever  the  principle  of  expediency  was  incarnate  in 
opposition  to  the  arrogant  claims  of  "  divine  right "  for 
the  hierarchal  forms  of  episcopacy  and  pnpacy,  it  was 
in  the  person  of  Bishop  Stillingfleet.  His  Irenicum 
never  has  and  never  will  be  answered.  And  yet  no 
man  ever  has  or  ever  will  present  more  invincible  argu- 
ments in  behalf  of  "the  divine  right  of  the  presbyters" 
to  govern  the  Church  of  God. 

We  respectfully  call  the  attention  of  all  thinkers  to 
his  massive  and  masterly  argument  in  Part  II,  chap,  ii, 
commencing  with  these  sentences :  "  The  government 
of  the  Church  ought  to  be  administered  by  officers  of 
divine  api)ointment."  "There  must  be  a  standing,  pei- 
petual  ministrj^  in  the  Church  of  God,  whose  care  and 
employment  must  be  to  oversee  and  govern  the  people 
of  God,  and  to  administer  Gospel  ordinances  among 
them,  and  this  is  of  divine  and  perpetual  right;"  and 
closing  with  the  following:  "Thus  I  have  asserted  the 
perpetual  divine  right  of  a  Gospel  ministry,  not  only 
for  teaching  the  word,  but  administration  of  ordi- 
nances and  governing  the  Church  as  a  society,  which 
work  belongs  to  none  but  such  as  are  appointed  for  it, 


The  Special  Commission  to  Govern.  119 


who  are  tlie  same  with  the  dispensers  of  the  word,  as 
appears  from  the  titles  agoumenoi,  proesotes,  poimenes, 
*  governors,'  '  rulers,'  *  pastors,'  all  which  necessarily  im- 
ply a  governing  power."  * 

So  far  from  giving  unlimited  sweep  to  the  primiplo 
of  expediency,  he  very  properly  subjects  it  to  the  fol- 
lowing "  standing  laws  for  Church  government,"  which 
may  be  "  applicable  to  several  forms." 

"All  laws  occurring  in  Scripture  respecting  Church 
government,"  he  tells  us,  "  may  be  referred  to  these 
three  heads:  (l)  Such  as  set  down  the  qualifications 
of  the  persons  for  the  office  of  government ;  (2)  such 
as  require  a  right  management  of  their  office;  and 
(3)  such  as  lay  down  rules  for  the  management  of  their 
office." 

1.  "  \Ve  begin,"  he  says,  "  with  those  which  set  down 
the  qualifications  of  persons  employed  in  government. 
These  we  have  largely  and  fully  set  down  by  St.  Paul 
in  his  order  to  Timothy  and  Titus,  prescribing  what 
manner  of  persons  those  should  be  who  are  to 
be  employed  in  the  government  of  the  Church:  'A 
bishop  must  be  blameless  as  the  steward  of  God;  not 
self-willed,  not  soon  angry,  not  given  to  wine,  no 
striker,' "  etc. 

2.  Under  the  head  of  "precepts  of  the  Gospel,  re- 
quiring a  right  management  of  the  work,"  he  specifies: 
"  Take  heed  unto  all  the  flock  over  which  the  Holy 
Ghost  had  made  you  overseers "  (Acts  xx,  28) ;  "  so 
exhorting,  reproving,  preaching  in  season  and  out  of 
season  "  (2  Tim.  iv,  2)  ;  doing  all  things  without  "  rash 

*  Iren.,  pp.  185,  190. 


120      Principles  of  Chukch  GovER^"ME^'T. 


censures"  and  partiality  (1  Tim.  v,  21);  watching  over 
the  flock  as  tliey  that  must  give  an  account ;  Inying 
hands  suddenly  on  no  man ;  rebuking  not  an  elder,  but 
under  two  or  three  witnesses  (lleb.  xiii,  17;  1  Tim.  v, 
19,  22) ;  and  whatever  precejJts  we  read  in  the  epistles 
of  Timothy  and  Titus. 

3.  Under  the  third  head  of  rules  he  specifies  "that 
no  one  take  this  office  of  preaching  without  a  call,  nor  go 
without  sending  (Heb.  v,  2;  Rom.  x,  14);  that  offend- 
ers be  censured  and  complaints  made  to  the  Church  in 
case  of  scandal ;  that  all  things  be  done  decently  and  in 
order ;  that  all  be  done  for  edification  and  the  com- 
mon benefit  of  the  Church.*  The  fact  which  he  very 
conclusively  shows,  that  all  the  above  "standing  laws 
for  tlie  government  of  the  Church"  are  equally  com- 
patible with  several  specific  forms  of  Church  polity, 
does  in  no  way  weaken  their  power  or  destroy  their 
value  as  barriers  to  that  rampant  spirit  of  expediency 
so  rife  in  our  day;  a  spirit  that  tramples  on  every  spe- 
cific Bible  law  for  the  ordering  of  Church  polity  that 
■would  not  leave  the  Lord  Jesus  a  solitary  ballot  in  de- 
termining the  most  momentous  issues  in  the  temporal 
destiny  of  his  Church. 

In  amazing  contrast  to  the  above  statesman-like  views 
of  Stillingfleet  read  from  one  of  the  lights  of  the  "nine- 
teenth century:  "  "Look  into  your  New  Testament  to 
settle  the  question  of  Church  government — of  the  rela- 
tive rights  of  clergy  and  people — what  do  you  find  in 
it  ?  Not  a  single  injunction,  except  that  most  general 
one,  *Let  all  things  be  done  decently  and  in  order.'" 

•  Ireru,  pp.  209,  211,  214 


TnE  Special  Commissiox  to  Govern.  121 


"Christianity  thus  started  untrainmeled  fm-  its  career 
over  all  the  planet  and  down  all  the  ages !"  Admirable ! 
With  charts  given  to  the  winds,  compass  and  quadrant 
overboard,  with  rudder  shipped,  ballast  loosened  in  the 
hold,  masts  and  cordage  gone,  the  lielpless  hulk  of  the 
iamiius  old  ship  Zion,  rolling  and  tumbling  in  the 
troughs  of  every  gale  of  expediency,  is  just  entering 
upon  a  voyage  "  untrammeled  for  its  career  over  all 
the  planet  and  down  all  the  ages! " 


122 


Principles  of  Cuurch  Government. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

THE  TWELVE  APOSTLES  ESPECIALLY  COMMISSIONED. 

We  will  now  undertake  to  show  that  the  two  special 
commissions  (to  preach  and  to  govern)  were  distinctive- 
ly given  to  the  twelve  apostles  in  the  name  of  God. 

Let  us  first  attend  to  the  special  call  to  preach.  Of 
the  great  Head  of  the  Church,  Mark  says:  "And  he 
goc'tli  u|)  unto  a  mountain  and  calleth  unto  him  whom 
he  would,  and  he  ord  tiiied  twelve  that  they  should  he 
with  hiin,  and  that  he  might  send  them  forth  to  preacli." 
Chap,  iii,  13,  14. 

Matthew  says :  "These  twelve  Jesus  sent  forth,  and 
commanded  them,  ...  As  ye  go  preach,  saying.  The 
kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand.  He  that  receiveth  you 
reeeiveth  me,  and  he  that  receiveth  me  receiveth  him 
that  sent  me."'  Chap,  x,  5-40.  Luke  says:  "He  called 
unto  him  his  disciples,  and  of  them  he  chose  twelve, 
whom  also  he  named  apostles."  Chap,  vi,  13.  "And 
he  sent  them  to  preach  the  kingdom  of  God."  Chap, 
ix,  2.  In  John  xv,  16,  27,  we  read:  "Ye  have  not 
chosen  me,  but  I  have  chosen  you,  and  ordained  you, 
that  ye  should  go  and  bring  forth  fruit,  .  .  .  and  ye  also 
shall  bear  toitness,  because  ye  have  been  with  me  from 
the  beginning."  The  solemn  reiteration  of  this  great 
commission  is  thus  made  by  Him  who  stood  but  a  step 
from  a  universal  throne.    The  place  and  circumstances 


The  Twelve  Apostles  Commissioned.  123 


are  noted  by  St.  Matthew  as  follows:  "  Then  the  eleven 
disciples  went  away  into  Galilee  into  a  mountain  where 
Jesus  iiad  appointed  them.  And  when  they  saw  him 
they  worshiped,  but  s^me  doubted.  And  Jesus  came 
and  spake  unto  them,  saying,  All  power  is  given  unto 
me  in  heaven  and  in  earth.  Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach 
all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghost;  teaching  them  to  observe  all 
things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you,  and  lo,  I  am 
wi^h  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world. 
Amen."    Matt,  xxviii,  16-20. 

If  a  certain  modt-rn  ex})osition  of  this  text  has  awak- 
ened a  question  as  to  whether  "  the  great  commission  " 
was  given  to  others  beside  the  eleven,  St.  Mark  will 
answer:  "Afterw-ard  he  appeared  unto  the  eleven  as 
they  sat  at  meat  and  upbraided  them  with  their  unbe- 
lief and  hardness  of  heart,  because  they  believed  not 
them  which  had  seen  him  after  he  was  risen;  and  he 
said  unto  them,  Go  ye  into  all  the  world  and  preach  the 
Gospel  to  every  creature."    Mark  xvi,  14,  15. 

Language  more  incisive  and  authoritative  could  not  be 
used.  The  fact  that  the  Saviour  "afterward"  called 
"  other  seventy  "  only  indicates  the  fact  that  those  who 
after  the  ajwstles  were  to  be  called  to  this  holy  office 
were  to  be  summoned  by  the  same  divine  authority. 

As  to  the  special  commission  of  the  apostles  to  govern 
in  the  Church  of  God,  we  call  attention,  first,  to  that 
noted  text  in  Matt,  xvi,  18,  19:  "I  say  unto  thee.  That 
thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  will  I  build  my  church, 
and  tiie  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it;  and  I 
will  give  unto  tliee  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven, 


124      Principles  of  Chukch  Government. 

and  whatsoever  thou  slialt  bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound 
in  heaven,  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  loose  on  earth 
shall  be  loosed  in  heaven." 

Dr.  Whedon,  than  whom  thei-e  is  no  profounder 
thinker  in  our  Church  on  either  side  the  sea,  in  his  ad- 
mirable notes  upon  this  jiassage  says:  "Authority  over 
the  whole  (Church)  is  conlerred  upon  Peter  and  through 
him  on  all  the  apostles,  by  bestowing  on  him  and  them 
the  keys."  '-This,"  he  continues,  "is  according  to  an 
ancient  custom  of  surrendering  the  government  of  a  city 
or  fortress  by  yielding  the  keys.  Hence  the  language  in 
Isa.  xxii,  22,  which  is  a  suitable  parallel  to  these  words 
of  our  Lord  :  '  The  key  of  the  house  of  David  will  I  lay 
upon  his  shoulder,  so  he  shall  open  and  none  shall  shut, 
and  he  shall  shut  and  none  shall  open.'  Our  Lord  there- 
fore here  confers  upon  the  twelve  an  inspired  and  mi- 
raadous  authority  and  power  to  found  and  govern  his 
Church  alter  his  resurrection  by  decisions  which  should 
be  ratified  in  heaven." 

{In  loco)  Adam  Clark  quotes  Dr.  Lightfoot  as  fol- 
lows :  "  To  this,  therefore,  these  words  amount.  When 
the  time  was  come  wherein  the  Mosaic  law,  as  to  some 
part  of  it,  was  to  be  abolished,  and  as  to  another  part 
was  to  he  coyitlnued  and  to  last  forever,  he  granted 
Peter  here  and  the  rest  of  the  apostles  (chap,  xviii,  18) 
a  power  to  abolish  or  confirm  whnt  they  thought  good, 
and  as  they  thought  good,  being  taught  and  led  by  the 
Holy  Spirit." 

Bloomfield,  in  his  notes  on  the  Greek  text,  says:  "The 
sense  will  be  whatsoever  thou  shalt  forbid  to  be  done,  or 
or  whatsoever  thou  sbalt  declare  lawful,  and  constitute  in 


TiiE  Twelve  Apostles  Commissioned. 


125 


the  Church,  shall  be  ratified  and  liold  good  with  God, 
including  all  measures  for  the  government  of  the 
Church."* 

"Strictly  considered,"  says  Altbrd,  in  his  comment 
on  the  Greek,  "  the  binding  and  loosing  belong  to  the 
power  of  legislation  in  the  Church  committed  to  the 
apostles." 

Bishop  Taylor  says:  "This  promise  was  made  to 
Peter  first,  yet  not  for  himself,  but  for  all  the  college, 
and  then  made  a  second  time  to  them  all  without  rep- 
resentation, but  in  diffusion,  and  performed  to  all  alike 
except  St.  Thomas."  f 

Dr.  Xast  says :  "  We  may  define  the  power  of  the 
keys,  conferred  here  upon  Peter  as  the  representative  of 
the  apostles,  and  afterward  expressly  declared  to  belong 
to  all  the  apostles,  to  be  a  twofold  power.  First,  it  is 
•what  has  been  called  the  key  of  doctrine — that  is,  the 
authority  to  declare  for  all  time  to  come  the  conditions 
of  salvation.  Secondly,  the  power  of  the  keys  implies 
•what  has  been  called  the  key  of  discipline — that  is,  to 
determine  the  terms  of  membership  in  the  Church  on 
earth ;  to  lay  down  such  laws  for  the  order  and  gov- 
ernment of  the  Church  as  to  be  binding  to  the  end 
of  time.  By  the  apostolical  legislation  the  Church  is 
bound  in  the  administration  of  discipline,  in  the  admis- 
sion and  exclusion  of  members.  It  is  only  the  wurd 
that  binds  and  looses." 

Let  us  turn  to  Matt,  xviii,  IS,  and  notice  that  the 
only  change  made  in  the  commission  of  the  apostles  is 

*See  Vitringa,  De  Synagogue,  p.  754. 
f  See  Blojmfield  in  loco. 


126       Principles  of  Chuecu  Government. 


in  the  substitution  of  the  term  "ye  "  for  "thou"  in  the 
commission  of  Peter  as  their  representative. 

"  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  whatsoever  ye  shall  bind  on 
earth  shall  be  bound  in  heaven,  and  whatsoever  ye  shall 
loose  on  earth  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven." 

Bishop  Bloomfield  thus  paraphrases  these  words: 
"  Whatever  ye  shall  determine  and  appoint  respecting 
such  an  offender  (see  verse  17),  whether  as  to  his  re- 
moval from  Christian  society  if  obdurate  and  incorrig- 
ible, or  his  re-admission  into  it  on  repentance,  I  will 
ratify;  and  whatever  guidance  ye  ask  from  heaven  in 
forming  those  determinations  shall  be  granted  you,  so 
that  there  be  two  or  three  that  unite  in  the  determina- 
tion or  in  the  prayer."  "  Hence  it  is  obvious  that  in 
their  primary  and  strict  sense  the  words  and  the  prom- 
ise have  reference  to  the  apostles  alone  ;  however,  they 
may  in  a  qualified  sense  apply  to  Christian  teachers  in 
every  age"  {in  loco). 

Richard  Watson  says:  "To  understand  this  passage 
clearly  it  is  necessary  to  consider  that  as  the  various 
matters  of  dispute  which  would  arise  among  brethren 
or  Christians  involved  moral  questions,  and  these  were 
to  be  referred  in  the  last  resort  to  the  Church,  they 
must  be  determined  by  some  fixeil  and  settled  rules. 
Now  Christianity  is  a  more  perfect  dispensation  of 
moral  duties  as  well  as  of  grace.  This  is  proved  from 
our  Lord's  Sermon  on  the  Mount  and  many  other  of  his 
discourses,  where  he  not  only  refutes  modern  errors, 
but  places  ancient  truths  in  clearer  light,  and  shows 
their  limitation  or  expansion  more  accurately,  and  adds 
many  others. 


TiiK  Twelve  Apostles  Commissioned.  127 


This  is  furtlier  confirmed  by  the  moral  part  of  the 
writings  of  the  apostles,  in  which  all  the  holy  princi- 
ples laid  down  in  the  Old  Testament  and  in  the  dis- 
courses of  Christ  are  drawn  out  into  particular  injunc- 
tions, and  applied  to  the  various  personal,  civil,  and 
ecclesiastical  and  social  duties  incumbent  upon  Chris- 
tians. 

It  was,  therefore,  necessary,  after  our  Lord,  with  ref- 
erence to  the  discipline  to  be  exercised  in  his  future 
Church,  liad  prescribed  the  mode  of  dealing  with  of- 
fenders, that  he  should  speak  of  the  rules  or  laws  by 
which  all  such  cases  were  to  be  determined,  and  the 
source  from  which  they  should  emanate.  Tliese  rules 
or  laws  were  to  be  brought  in  by  the  ai)ostles,  to  wliom 
the  Holy  Spirit  was  to  be  given,  in  the  plenitude  of  his 
inspiration,  to  bring  the  doctrines  wliich  Christ  himself 
had  tauglit  to  their  remembrance,  and  to  lead  tliem  into 
all  truth  necessary  to  comjilete  the  Christian  system. 
Now  these  were  to  be  the  sole  and  only  laws  by  which 
things  were  to  be  bound  or  loosed,  declared  lawful  or 
unlawful,  binding  upon  men's  consciences  or  otherwise, 
and  consequently  by  these  rules  Christians  were  to  form 
their  private  judgment  respecting  what  is  right  and 
what  is  wrong  in  their  various  kinds  and  degrees,  and 
by  these  same  rules  the  censures  or  otherwise  of  the 
Church  w^'e  to  be  solely  directed. 

These  words,  therefore,  were  spoken  to  the  apostles 
— as  indeed  was  the  whole  preceding  discourse;  for 
the  eleven,  after  they  had  disputed  about  superiority  by 
the  way,  joined  Peter  and  Christ  in  the  house;  and  the 
twelve  being  thus  collected,  and  they  only,  our  Lord 


128      Peinciples  of  Church  Goveensient. 


delivers  to  them  the  series  of  addresses  which  this 
chapter  contains."  Expos.  Matt,  xviii,  18. 

Does  any  man  question  the  authoiity  of  the  inspired 
apostles  in  the  Church  of  God  ?  The  Saviour  says: 
"  As  ray  Father  iiath  sent  me,  even  so  send  I  you." 
John  XX,  21.  "  He  that  heareth  you  heareth  me,  and 
he  that  despiseth  you  despiseth  nie,  and  he  that  de- 
spiseth  me  despiseth  him  that  sent  me."  Luke  x,  16. 


Special  Commission  to  Ordained  Elders.  129 


CHAPTER  VIL 

THE  SPECIAL  COMMISSION  COXVETED  TO  THE  ORDAINED 
PREACHING  ELDERS. 

Our  next  proposition  is  that  authority  to  govern  in 
the  primitive  Church,  according  to  the  "  bindings  and 
loosings"  of  the  New  Testament,  was  conveyed  by  the 
act  of  inspired  apostles  to  the  ordained  pastoral  or 
preaching  elders  who  succeeded  them  in  the  name  of 
God. 

While  we  are  no  advocate  of  "  prelatical  or  apostolic 
succession,"  as  held  either  by  High-Churchmen  or  Ro- 
manists, we  do  hold  what  it  seems  to  us  no  man  in  his 
senses  can  deny — that  to  the  ordained  elders  in  the 
primitive  Churches,  as  distinguished  from  the  laity, 
was  given  supervisory  authority  over  all  the  spiritual 
interests  of  the  Church. 

In  their  especial  mission  as  witnesses  of  Christ's  min- 
istry, death,  resurrection,  and  ascension  (see  Luke  xxiv, 
46,  48;  Acts  i,  21-23;  xxii,  14;  1  Cor.  ix,  1,  2),  for 
which  cause  they  were  called  "  apostles,"  they  could,  of 
course,  have  no  successors  ;  nor  in  their  capacity  as  the 
inspired  authors  who  were  to  complete  the  canon  of 
Scripture,  for  their  inspired  rulings  were  to  constitute 
the  organic  law  of  the  Church  to  the  end  of  time,  bind- 
ing on  earth  because  ratified  in  heaven.  Nor  yet,  per- 
liaps,  as  the  possessors  of  miraculous  gifts  could  they 
9 


130      Principles  of  Cuurch  Government, 


have  had  successors,  for  these,  it  wouhi  seem  (2  Cor. 
xii,  12  ;  Acts  ii,  43),  were  the  especial  badges  or  cre- 
dentials of  their  apostolic  mission.But  this  they  could 
and  did  do:  they  transferred  to  tlie  ordained  and  pas- 
toral elders  who  succeeded  them  their  administrative  or 
supervisory  prerogatives;  involving,  of  course,  not  only 
executive,  but  in  a  minor  sense  the  legislative,  functions, 
at  least  so  far  as  it  should  be  necessary  in  devising 
ways  and  means  for  the  efficient  application  of  the  fun- 
damental and  unvarying  organic  law. 

The  joint  union  of  the  "  elders  "  of  the  Church  at  Je- 
rusalem with  the  apostles,  both  in  the  deliberations  and 
promulgation  of  the  authoritative  decrees  of  the  fii-st 
council,  binding  the  Gentile  Church  for  all  time,  is  evi- 
dence tliat  "  the  twelve "  had  associated  them  with 
tliemselves  at  least  in  the  administrative  functions  of 
the  primitive  Church,  And,  indeed,  "  Peter,  an  apostle 
of  Jesus  Christ  " — the  one  to  whom  the  keys  were  es- 
pecially given  (as  a  representative  apostle)— in  writing 
to  the  "  strangers  scattered  throughout  Pontus,  Galatia, 
Asia,  and  Bithynia,"  addressed  the  "elders"  among 
them  as  being  himself  a  "  co-"  or  "fellow  elder" 
{sinirprcitlnitcros),  and  "  exhorts  "  them  :  "  Feed  the  flock 
of  God  which  is  among  you,  taking  the  oversight 
(  phkdjwimtcs)  theieof,  not  by  constraint,  but  willingly; 
iKit  for  filthy  lucre,  but  of  a  ready  mind;  neither  as 
being  lords  over  God's  heritage,  but  being  ensamplcs  to 
the  flock."  1  Pet.  v,  1,  2. 

To  the  same  import  is  the  language  of  "  Paul,  called 
to  be  an  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ  through  the  will  of 
God,"  in  his  address  to  the  "elders  (prcsbutcroi)  of  the 


Special  Commission  to  Okdained  Elders.  131 


Church"  of  E2)hesus  gathered  at  Miletus:  "Take  heed 
therefore  unto  yourselves,  and  to  all  the  flock,  over  the 
which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you  overseers  (epis- 
kopous),  to  feed  the  Church  of  God."  Acts  xx,  28. 

To  these  presbyters  or  "  elders  "  (episkopoi),  "  bish- 
ops or  pastors,"  who  are  to  "feed  the  flock  of  God," 
the  people  are  exhorted  with  apostolic  solicitude,  and 
commanded  by  apostolic  authority,  to  be  subject. 

"  And  we  beseech  you,  brethren,  to  know  them 
which  labor  among  you,  and  are  over  you  in  the  Lord, 
and  admonish  you,  and  to  esteem  them  very  highly  in 
love  for  their  work's  sake."  1  Thess.  v,  12,  13.  "  Re- 
member them  which  have  the  rule  over  you,  who  have 
spoken  unto  you  the  word  of  God  :  whose  faith  follow." 
Heb.  xiii,  7.  "  Obey  them  that  have  the  rule  over  you, 
and  submit  yourselves :  for  they  watch  for  your  souls, 
as  they  that  must  give  account,  that  they  may  do  it 
with  joy,  and  not  with  grief."    Verse  17. 

It  is  impossible  for  Scripture  to  be  more  explicit  or 
authoritative,  and  yet  in  an  age  giddy  with  its  own 
vanities  these  texts  go  for  nothing.  "  Look  into  your 
New  Testaments,"  says  one  distinguished  advocate, 
"  to  settle  the  question  of  Church  government,  of  the 
relative  rights  of  clergy  and  people,  and  what  do  you 
find  in  it?  Not  a  single  injunction  except  that  most 
general  one,  '  Let  all  things  be  done  decently  and  in 
order.' "  ! !  ! 

Now  a  word  as  to  the  origin  of  the  office  of  "elder" 
and  its  significance  in  the  New  Testament.  John 
Wesley  says,  "  Try  all  things  by  the  written  word,  and 
let  all  bow  down  before  it." 


132       Principles  op  Church  Government. 


Of  the  prophetic  elders  ordained  of  God,  we  read  in 
Num.  xi,  16,  24,  25: 

"And  the  Lord  said  unto  Moses,  Gather  unto  me 
seventy  men  of  the  elders  of  Israel,  whom  thou  know- 
est  to  be  the  elders  of  the  people,  and  officers  over 
them;  and  bring  them  unto  the  tabernacle  of  the  con- 
gregation, that  they  may  stand  there  with  thee.  And 
Moses  went  out,  and  told  the  people  the  words  of  the 
Lord,  and  gathered  the  seventy  men  of  the  elders  of 
the  people,  and  set  them  round  about  the  tabernacle. 
And  the  Lord  came  down  in  a  cloud,  and  spake  unto 
him,  and  took  of  the  spirit  that  was  upon  him,  and 
gave  it  unto  the  seventy  elders:  and  it  came  to  pass, 
that,  when  the  Spirit  rested  u2)on  them,  they  prophesied, 
and  did  not  cease." 

It  is  the  opinion  of  Michaelis  that  this  council  chosen 
to  assist  Moses  should  not  be  confounded  with  the 
Sanhedrin,  which  he  thinks  was  not  established  until 
after  the  return  from  the  Babylonish  captivity.  "  The 
seventy,"  he  says,  "  were  not  cliosen  to  be  judges  of 
the  people,  who  had  already  more  than  sixty  thousand 
judL;es."  "  It  seems,"  he  says,  "  more  likely  to  have 
been  his  intention  to  form  a  supreme  senate  to  take  a 
share  in  the  government.'''' 

"  We  need  not  assume,"  says  McClintock  and  Strong's 
Cyclopedia,  "  that  the  order  was  then  called  into  exist- 
ence, but  rather  that  Moses  availed  himself  of  an  insti- 
tution already  existing  and  recognized  by  his  country- 
men, and  that,  in  short,  '  the  elders  of  Israel '  (Exod.  iii, 
16;  iv,  29)  had  been  the  senate  (Sept.  yepovaia)  of  the 
people  ever  since  they  had  been  a  people.    The  posi- 


Special  Commission  to  Ordained  Elders.  183 


tion  which  the  eUlers  held  in  the  Mosaic  constitution  is 
described  as  the  representatives  of  the  people,  so  much 
BO  that  elders  and  people  are  occasionally  used  as 
synonymous  terms.  Their  authority  was  undefined, 
and  extended  to  all  matters  pertaining  to  the  public 
weal.  Nor  did  the  people  question  the  validity  of 
tlieir  acts,  even  when  they  disapproved  of  them. 
Josh,  ix,  18.  And  so  they  tell  us,  "The  creation  uf  the 
office  of  elder  is  nowhere  recorded  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, as  in  the  case  of  deacons  and  apostles,  because 
the  latter  offices  were  created  to  meet  new  and  special 
emergencies,  wliile  the  former  was  transmitted  from 
the  earliest  times.  In  other  words,  the  office  of  elder 
was  the  only  permanent  essential  office  of  the  Church 
under  either  dispensation."  * 

"The  Jewish  eldership,  according  to  this  view,  was 
tacitly  transferred  from  the  old  dispensation  to  the 
new,  without  express  or  formal  institution,  except  in 
Gentile  churches,  where  no  such  office  had  a  previous 
existence."  f 

"The  elders  of  the  New  Testament  Church  were 
plainly  pastors  (Eph.  iv,  11),  bishops,  or  overseers  (Acts 
XX,  28),  leaders  and  rulers  (Heb.  xiii,  7 ;  1  Thess.  v,  12) 
of  the  flock."  I 

"  But  they  were  not  only  leaders  and  rulers,  but  also 
the  regular  teachers  of  the  congregation,  to  whom 
pertained  officially  the  exposition  of  the  Scriptures  and 
the  preaching  of  the  Gospel."  § 

As  for  the  idea  advanced  in  some  quarters,  that  some 
*  Princeton  Review,  xix,  61. 

t  MeClintock  &  Strong,  article  "  Elder."       J  Ibid.       §  Ilkl. 


134      Principles  of  Church  Government. 


of  the  elders  were  laymen,  we  quote  from  Dr.  Hitch- 
cock,* as  follows:  "The  jure  divino  theory  of  the  lay 
eldership  is  steadily  losing  ground."  The  Westmin- 
ster Assembly,  after  a  long  discussion,  refused  to 
adopt  Calvin's  novel  theory  of  a  lay  ruling  eldership. 

For  a  luminous  statement  of  the  whole  subject  of 
lay  eldership,  with  a  conclusive  proof  that  there  is  ?io 
trace  of  it  in  the  New  Testament^  see  Dr.  Hitchcock's 
article  in  the  Presbyterian  Review,  1868. 

But  what  is  the  testimony  of  the  early  fathers  as  to 
the  authority  of  the  ruling  elders  in  the  post-apostolic 
period  ? 

In  the  "golden  remains  of  Clement  Romanus,"  as  the 
critics  say,  "  great  and  admirable,"  "  almost  on  a  level 
with  the  canonical  writings,"  "  this  precious  relic  of 
later  apostolic  times,"  we  find  the  following  on  the 
very  first  page:  "  For  ye  walked  in  all  the  command- 
ments of  God,  being  obedient  to  those  that  had  the 
rule  over  you,  and  giving  all  fitting  honor  to  the  pres- 
byters among  you." 

Again :  "  Let  us  reverence  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
whose  blood  was  given  for  us;  let  us  esteem  those 
that  have  the  rule  over  us ;  let  us  honor  the  presbyters 
among  us." — P.  23. 

"Let  us  preserve  in  the  Church  the  order  appointed 
of  God.  ...  He  has  enjoined  offerings  to  be  presented 
and  services  to  be  performed  to  him.  Where  and  by 
whom  he  desires  these  things  to  be  done  he  himself 
has  fixed  by  his  own  supreme  will.  .  .  .  The  laymen 
bound  by  laws  that  pertain  to  laymen." — P.  36. 
*  American  Presbyterian  Review,  1868,  p.  255. 


Special  Commission  to  Ordained  Elders.  135 


"  Let  every  one  of  you,  brethren,  give  thanks  to  God 
in  his  own  order,  living  with  becoming  gravity,  and 
not  going  beyond  the  rule  of  the  ministry  prescribed 
to  him."— P.  36. 

"Christ  was  sent  forth  by  God,  and  the  ajiostles  by 
Christ.  Having  thus  leceived  their  orders,  tliey  went 
forth  proclaiming  that  the  kingdom  of  God  was  at 
hand.  And  thus  preaching  through  countries  and 
cities  they  appointed  the  first-fruits  of  their  labors, 
having  first  proved  them  by  the  Spirit,  to  be  bishops 
and  deacons  of  those  who  should  afterward  believe." 
—P.  37. 

"  Our  apostles  also  knew  through  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  that  there  would  be  strife  on  account  of  the 
office  of  the  episcopate.  For  tliis  reason  they  appointed 
those  ministers  already  named,  and  afterward  gave  in- 
structions that  when  they  should  fall  asleep  other  ap- 
proved men  should  succeed  them  in  their  ministry. 
We  are  of  opinion,  therefore,  that  those  appointed  by 
them  or  afterward  by  other  eminent  men  with  the 
consent  of  the  whole  Cluu'ch,  and  who  have  blame- 
lessly served  the  flock  of  Christ  in  a  humble,  peace- 
able, and  disinterested  spirit,  and  have  for  a  long 
time  possessed  the  good  opinion  of  all,  cannot 
be  justly  dismissed  the  ministry;  for  our  sin  will 
not  be  small  if  we  reject  from  the  episcopate  tliose 
who  have  blamelessly  and  holily  fulfilled  its  duties." 
—P.  39. 

"  It  is  disgraceful,  beloved,  highly  disgraceful,  and 
unworthy  your  Christian  profession,  that  such  a  thing 
should  be  heard  of  as  that  the  most  steadfast  and  an- 


134:     Principles  op  Church  Government. 


of  the  elders  were  laymen,  we  quote  from  Dr,  Hitch- 
cock,* as  follows:  "The  jure  clichio  theory  of  the  lay 
eldership  is  steadily  losing  ground."  The  Westmin- 
ster Assembly,  after  a  long  discussion,  refused  to 
adopt  Calvin's  novel  theory  of  a  lay  ruling  eldership. 

For  a  luminous  statement  of  the  whole  subject  of 
lay  eldership,  with  a  conclusive  proof  that  there  is  no 
trace  of  it  in  the  New  Testament,  see  Dr.  Hitchcock's 
article  in  the  Presbyterian  Review,  1868. 

But  what  is  the  testimony  of  the  early  fathers  as  to 
the  authority  of  the  ruling  elders  in  the  post-apostolic 
period  ? 

In  the  "  golden  remains  of  Clement  Romanus,"  as  the 
critics  say,  "  great  and  admirable,"  "  almost  on  a  level 
with  the  canonical  writings,"  "  this  precious  relic  of 
later  apostolic  times,"  we  find  the  following  on  the 
veiy  first  page:  "For  ye  walked  in  all  the  command- 
ments of  God,  being  obedient  to  those  that  had  the 
rule  over  you,  and  giving  all  fitting  honor  to  the  pres- 
byters among  you." 

Again:  "Let  us  reverence  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
whose  blood  was  given  for  us;  let  us  esteem  those 
that  have  the  rule  over  us ;  let  us  honor  the  presbyters 
among  us." — P.  23. 

"Let  us  preserve  in  the  Church  the  order  appointed 
of  God.  ...  He  has  enjoined  offerings  to  be  presented 
and  services  to  be  performed  to  him.  Where  and  by 
whom  he  desires  these  things  to  be  done  he  himself 
has  fixed  by  his  own  supreme  will.  .  .  .  The  laymen 
bound  by  laws  that  pertain  to  laymen." — P.  36. 
*  American  Preshyterian  Review,  1868,  p.  255. 


Special  Commission  to  Ordained  Elders.  135 


"Let  every  one  of  you,  brethren,  give  thanks  to  God 
in  his  own  order,  living  with  becoming  gravity,  and 
not  going  beyond  the  rule  of  the  ministry  prescribed 
to  him."— P.  3G. 

"  Christ  was  sent  forth  by  God,  and  the  ajiostles  by 
Christ.  Having  tlius  received  their  orders,  they  went 
forth  proclaiming  that  the  kingdom  of  God  was  at 
liand.  And  tlius  preaching  through  countries  and 
cities  they  appointed  the  first-fruits  of  their  labors, 
liaving  first  proved  them  by  the  Spirit,  to  be  bishops 
and  deacons  of  those  who  should  afterward  believe." 
—P.  37. 

"  Our  apostles  also  knew  through  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  that  there  would  be  strife  on  account  of  the 
office  of  the  episcopate.  For  this  reason  they  appointed 
those  ministers  already  named,  and  afterward  gave  in- 
structions that  when  they  should  fall  asleep  other  ap- 
proved men  should  succeed  them  in  their  ministry. 
We  are  of  opinion,  therefore,  that  those  appointed  by 
them  or  afterward  by  other  eminent  men  with  the 
consent  of  the  whole  Church,  and  who  have  blame- 
lessly served  the  flock  of  Christ  in  a  humble,  peace- 
able, and  disinterested  spirit,  and  have  for  a  long 
time  possessed  the  good  opinion  of  all,  cannot 
be  justly  dismissed  the  ministry;  for  our  sin  will 
not  be  small  if  we  reject  from  the  episcopate  tliose 
who  have  blamelessly  and  holily  fulfilled  its  duties." 
—P.  39. 

"  It  is  disgraceful,  beloved,  highly  disgraceful,  and 
unworthy  your  Christian  profession,  that  such  a  thing 
should  be  heard  of  as  that  the  most  steadfast  and  an- 


136      Principles  op  Church  Government. 


cient  Church  of  the  Corhithians  should  on  account  of 
one  or  two  persons  engage  in  sedition  against  its  pres- 
byters."—P.  41. 

"  If  on  my  account  sedition  and  disagreement  and 
schisms  have  arisen,  I  will  depart.  I  will  do  whatever 
the  majority  (literally,  the  multitude)  commands,  only 
let  the  flock  of  Christ  live  on  terms  of  peace  with  the 
presbyters  set  over  it." — P.  45. 

"Ye  therefore  who  laid  the  foundation  of  this  sedi- 
tion submit  yourselves  to  the  presbyters  and  receive 
correction  so  as  to  repent,  bending  the  knees  of  your 
hearts.  Learn  to  be  subject,  laying  aside  the  pride  and 
self-confidence  of  your  tongue." — P.  48. 

There  is  a  general  consent  among  scholars  at  the 
present  day  that  we  have  in  the  epistle  of  Polycarp  an 
authentic  production  of  the  renowned  Bishop  of  Smyrna. 
Irenseus,  his  disciple,  tells  us  that  "Polycarp  was  in- 
structed by  the  apostles,  and  was  brought  into  contact 
with  many  who  had  seen  Christ."  The  epistle  opens 
with — "  Polycarp  and  the  presbyters  with  him,  to  the 
Church  of  God  sojourning  at  Phili])pi." 

"  In  like  manner  should  the  deacons  be  blameless  be- 
fore the  face  of  his  righteousness,  as  being  the  servants 
of  God  and  Christ,  and  not  of  «ien." 

"Let  the  presbyters  be  compassionate  and  merciful 
to  all,  bringing  back  those  that  wander,  visiting  Avith 
the  sick,  not  neglecting  the  widow,  the  orphan,  or  the 
poor,  abstaining  from  unjust  judgment,  not  quickly 
crediting  an  evil  report  against  any  one,  not  severe  in 
judgment." 

"I  am  greatly  grieved  for  Valens,  Avho  was  once  a 


Special  Commission  to  Ordatxed  Elders.  137 


presbyter  among  you,  becau'^e  be  so  little  understands 
the  place  that  was  given  bim  in  the  Cluircl)."* 

Mosbeina  f  tells  the  whole  story.  "And,  indeed,  oven 
the  bishops  themselves,  whose  opulence  and  autliority 
were  considerably  increased  since  the  reign  of  Constan- 
tine,  began  to  introduce  gradually  innovations  into  the 
forms  of  ecclesiastical  discipline,  and  to  change  the  an- 
cient government  of  the  Church.  Their  first  step  was  an 
entire  exclusion  of  the  people  from  all  part  in  the  admin- 
istration of  ecclesiastical  affairs;  and  afterward  they 
by  degrees  divested  even  the  presbi/ters  of  their  ancient 
privileges  and  their  printitive  aiithor/(>/,  that  they  might 
have  no  unfortunate  protestei's  to  control  their  ambi- 
tion or  oppose  their  proceedings,  and  principally  that 
they  might  either  engross  to  themselves,  or  distribute 
as  they  thought  proper,  the  possessions  and  revenues 
of  the  Church." 

Of  Church  government  in  the  second  century  be  says: 
"To  the  bishops  and  presbyters  the  ministers  or  dea- 
cons were  subject,  and  the  latter  were  divided  into  a 
variety  of  classes  as  the  different  exigencies  of  the 
Church  required."  J 

Bailly,  an  eminent  Romanist  authority,  who  professes 
to  give  the  present  sentiments  of  the  Cliurch  of  Rome 
on  this  matter,  says,  after  noting  the  error  of  Brentius  : 
"The  second  error  is  that  of  Antonius  de  Dominis,  who 
says  '  that  the  consent  of  the  whole  Church  is  to  be  un- 
derstood not  less  of  the  laity  than  of  the  presbyters  and 
prelates.'    The  third  error  of  certain  innovators  of  our 

*  Apostolic  Fathers,  pp.  72,  1?,.  f  Vol.  i,  p.  172. 

X  Vol.  i,  p.  88. 


138      Principles  op  Church  Government. 

time,  namely,  tlie  defenders  of  the  Jansenists,  who  in 
various  writings  assert  that  the  clergy  of  the  second 
rank,  or  presbyters,  as  well  as  bishops,  are  judges  of 
controversies  of  faith;  .  .  .  that  presbyters  have  by  the 
divine  right  the  power  of  judging  concerning  ecclesias- 
tical matters."  * 

Do  we  advocate  popery  ?  No !  Popery  denounces 
the  doctrine  we  teach,  that  presbyters  elected  by  the 
people  are  the  scriptural  governoi's  of  the  Church,  not 
as  lords,  but  always  with  the  consent  of  the  people,  as 
the  second  and  third  errors  in  Church  government. 

*  Lib.  I,  c.  xii,  n.  42. 


The  "Wesleyan  Axiom."  139 


CHAPTER  Vni, 

THE  "WESLEYAN  AXIOM." 

One  of  John  Wesley's  incidental  sayings  has  been 
transformed  into  a  fundamental  "  axiom,"  and  used 
against  the  attempts  of  any  man  to  arrive  by  prayerl'ul 
study  of  the  word  of  God  at  the  thought  of  the  divine 
mind  in  respect  to  the  government  of  the  Church.  That 
so-called  "axiom"  reads  thus:  "Neither  Christ  nor  his 
apostles  prescribe  any  particular  form  of  Church  gov- 
ernment." So  far  from  being  axiomatic,  self-evident, 
this  maxim  has  been  less  understood  and  more  thor- 
oughly misapplied  than  any  other  utterance  that  ever 
fell  from  the  lips  of  John  Wesley. 

If  one  should  listen  to  the  modern  expositions  of  that 
axiom  he  would  infer  that  John  Wesley  believed  that 
neither  Christ  nor  his  apostles  prescribed  any  thing 
whateoer,  either  general  or  particular,  in  reference  to 
Church  government;  that  the  Scriptures  are  altogether 
silent  on  a  subject  of  such  moment  to  the  peace  and 
prosperity  of  the  Church.  It  is  time  that  this,  the 
merest  ghost  of  John  Wesley's  real  sentiments,  was 
forever  laid. 

Gathering  up  all  of  that  great  man's  "liberal  say- 
ings "  upon  this  subject,  and  putting  all  the  difficulties 
at  once  before  us,  let  us  ask,  What  did  John  Wesley 
mean  by  "  particular  forms  "  and  "  determinate  plans  ?  " 


140      Principles  of  Church  Government. 

The  same  as  general  forms  ?  the  same  as  those  under- 
lying fundamental  principles  and  relations  upon  which 
certain  "  determinate  "  forms  and  detailed  "  plans  "  may 
be  grounded?  What  did  he  mean  by  the  statement 
that  "  offices  and  officers  ought  to  be  varied  from  time 
to  time?"  Did  he  mean  that  there  was  no  funda- 
mental order  of  the  ministry  as  distinguished  from  the 
various  offices  and  officers  which  might  be  appointed 
by  and  in  that  order?— no  permanent  pastoral  ministry 
with  constant  relations  to  tlie  people  ?  Did  John  Wes- 
ley ever  hold  that  it  was  altogether  optional  with  the 
Church  as  to  whether  there  should  be  any  ministry,  or 
any  government,  or  any  Church  at  all? — that  it  was 
entirely  "optional"  as  to  whether  the  j)astor  should 
rule  the  flock,  or  the  flock  tiie  pastor  ?  Is  it  possible 
that  John  Wesley  was  never  able  to  discern,  or  to 
state  distinctly,  his  views  upon  the  dilFerence  there 
is  between  the  constant  and  the  variable,  the  oblig- 
atory and  the  optional,  the  general  and  tlie  "  partic- 
ular?" 

We  think  not.  As  Louis  Agassiz,  the  first  of  scien- 
tific men,  lecturing  on  "  The  Plan  of  God  in  Creation 
for  the  Government  of  Nature,"  was  led  to  say  :  "As 
a  musician  who,  taking  a  familiar  tune,  should  play  an 
endless  number  of  variations  upon  it,  in  each  of  which 
the  fundamental  theme  may  be  recognized,  so,"  he  says, 
"the  idea  of  the  permanent  types  is  played  upon  by 
the  almighty  Artist,  filling  the  world  with  variety."  * 
He  tells  us  that  "  the  types  (of  the  vertebrate,  articu- 
late, moUusk,  and  radiate)  have  existed  in  all  times, 
*  Animal  Life, 


The  "  Wesley  AN  Axiom." 


141 


with  the  same  essential  structural  elements,  but  under 
different  specific  forms  in  the  several  geological  peri- 
ods."* Again,  he  speaks  of  the  Deity  "maintaining 
the  organic  plan  while  constantly  diveisit'ying  the 
mode  of  expressing  it." — P.  48.  And  still  again  he 
says,  "These  still  deeper  ideal  relations — the  pla)is  or 
structural  conceptions  upon  which  animals  are  based — 
are  adhered,  to  with  a  tenacity  in  strange  contrast  to  the 
perishableness  of  the  material  forms  through  which  they 
are  expressed." — P.  43.  And  yet,  strange  as  it  may 
seem,  Agassiz  complains  that  some  naturalists  fail  to 
discern  these  distinctions.  He  tells  us  that  "all  their 
divergence  from  the  simplicity  and  grandeur  of  the 
divisions  of  the  animal  kingdom,  first  recognized  by 
Cuviei",  arises  from  their  inability  to  distinguish  be- 
tween the  essential  features  of  a  plan  and  its  various 
modes  of  execution.  They  allow  the  details  to  shut 
out  the  plan  itself,  which  exists  quite  independent  of 
special  forms?''  f 

Is  it  possible  that  God  can  liave  in  nature  a  plan, 
broad  and  deep,  general  and  fundamental,  quite  inde- 
pendent of  special  forms?  and  is  it  possible  that  distin- 
guished naturalists  have  allowed  the  variable  "details 
to  shut  out  the  plan  itself,"  unable  to  distinguish  be- 
tween "  the  essential  features  and  the  various  modes  of 
its  execution  ?"  Then  it  is  iwssihle  that  God  may  have 
in  Church  government  a  plan,  broad  and  deep,  general 
and  fundamental,  quite  independent  of  special  forms. 
Then  it  is  possilile  that  late  theologians  should  allow 
details  to  shut  out  the  jilan  itself,  and  this  from  "their 
*  Sktkhes,  p.  32.  f  Natural  Uislory. 


144      Principles  of  Church  Goyeenment. 


pei-petual  ministry  in  tlie  Church  of  God,  whose  care 
and  employment  mast  be  to  oversee  and  govern  the 
people  of  God,  and  to  administer  Gospel  ordinances 
among  them ;  and  this  is  of  divine  and  perpetual  right." 
And  after  proving  at  great  length  the  perpetuity  of  the 
Christian  ministry,  he  concludes  his  invincible  argu- 
ment with  these  unambiguous  words:  "  Thus  I  have  now 
asserted  the  perpetual  divine  right  of  a  Gospel  ministry, 
not  only  for  teaching  the  word,  but  "administration  of 
ordinances  and  governing  the  Church  as  a  society, 
which  belongs  to  none  but  such  as  are  appointed  for  it, 
who  are  the  same  with  the  dispensers  of  the  word,  as 
appears  from  the  titles,  Tjyov[ievol  [agoumenoi),  TT^oiara- 
HevoL  {praistajueiwi),  Troijieveg  {poimenes),  governors, 
rulers,  pastors,  all  which  necessarily  imply  a  governing 
power." 

Language  more  unqualified,  sharp,  and  incisive  could 
not  be  used,  evidencing  beyond  the  possibility  of  a 
question  that  this  "  axiom,"  as  drawn  from  Stillingfleet 
direct,  had  not  the  slightest  possible  reference  to  the 
fundamental  obligation  laid  by  the  Holy  Ghost  upon 
the  pastoral  ministry  to  govern,  and  upon  the  laity  to 
submit  to  "them  that  have  the  rule  over"  them  "  in  the 
Lord." 

Stillingfleet,  Wesley,  and  Emory  had  sole  reference 
to  the  "particular  forti<"and  "determinate  plans" 
npon  which  the  pastoral  "governors  of  the  Church  " 
might  agree  in  the  exercise  of  an  authority  enjoined  of 
God. 

Jackson,  in  his  Life  of  Charles  Wesley,  in  comment- 
ing on  the  "axiom"  says:  "What  John  Wesley  ob- 


The  "  Wesley  AX  Axiom."  145 


jected  to  was  the  assumption  that  diocesan  episcopacy, 
possessing  the  exclusive  power  of  ordination  and  gov- 
ernment, was  instituted  by  Christ,  and  is  binding  in  all 
ages  upon  the  universal  Church  of  Christ." — P.  "722. 
Or,  as  he  might  perhaps  more  justly  have  said,  that 
Wesley  objected  to  the  exclusive  pretensions  of  any  de- 
terminate "form"  or  "plan"  "agreed  on  by  the  gov- 
ernors of  the  Church."  Stilliugfleet  wrote  especially 
to  allay  the  lury  of  the  contest  between  the  pretentious 
Episcopacy  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  equally  exclusive 
Presbyterians  and  Independents  on  the  other — a  contest 
styled  by  Baxter  the  JJellum  £^2^iscojn  (War  of  the 
Bishops);  a  war  second  only  to  that  which,  according 
to  John  Milton,  took  place  in  heaven  when  archangels 
met  "addressed  for  fight  unspeakable;"  a  war  that 
placed  the  heavy  heel  of  the  anti-Episcopal  Cromwell 
upon  the  neck  of  that  most  zealous  of  all  prelatical  ad- 
vocates among  kings,  Charles  I. ;  a  war  whose  thunders 
have  shaken  all  Europe  to  its  center,  the  last  dying  dis- 
sonances of  which  have  been  so  recently  rocking  the 
very  foundations  of  the  meekest  of  all  episcopates — 
less  even  than  presbyterial  "  bishops  ! "  "  bishops," 
without  even  the  prerogative  of  a  layman — a  vote  in 
making  "  rules  and  regulations  "  for  the  government  of 
the  Church  of  God. 

If  there  yet  remains  the  slightest  doubt  as  to  the  sig- 
nificance of  the  "  Wesleyan  axiom,"  let  us  turn  directly 
to  John  Wesley  himself.  What  did  he  mean  by  that 
"axiom?"  That  every  thing  in  Church  government 
was  optional  ?  every  thing  at  the  dictate  of  expediency 
or  convenience ?  nothing  prescribed?  nothing  enjoined ? 
10 


146       Principles  of  Church  Government. 


no  divine  constants  ?  no  general,  fundamental,  and  con- 
servative principles  underlying  the  radical  progress  of 
the  Church  through  the  ages  ? 

"What  did  John  Wesley  think  and  write  about  the 
order  of  pastoral  elders?  That  will  take  close  care 
of  the  "  axiom  "  forever !  We  thank  God  that  he  has 
left  on  record  clear  and  decisive  statements. 

1.  He  never  held  that  the  pastoral  ministry  were 
simply  the  executive  oiBcers  of  the  people,  deriving 
their  sole  authority  or  power  from  them,  and  simply 
responsible  to  them,  John  Wesley  said:  ''The  suppo- 
sition that  the  people  are  the  origin  of  power  is  every 
way  indefensible.  Common  sense  brings  us  back  to  the 
grand  truth — there  is  no  power  but  of  God."  * 

2.  lie  never  held  that  the  laity  or  the  people  possessed 
sole  authority  to  commission  elders  as  preachers  of  the 
word.  On  Matt,  x,  5,  he  says:  "These  twelve  Jesus 
sent  forth,  herein  exercising  his  supreme  authority  as 
God,  and  none  but  God  can  give  men  authority  to 
preach  his  word."  f 

3.  He  never  hold  that  the  people  liad,  either  by  nature 
or  Scripture,  sole  authority  or  power  to  constitute  their 
rulers  in  the  Church.  In  his  iiote  on  Acts  xx,  17, 
"Take  heed  to  yourselves,"  etc.,  he  thus  paraphrases 
the  language  of  the  apostle:  "I  now  devolve  my  care 
upon  you,  first  to  yourselves,  and  then  to  the  flock  over 
which  the  Holy  Gliost  hath  made  you  overseers;  for  no 
man  or  number  of  men  can  constitute  an  overseer, 
bishop,  or  any  other  Christian  minister:  to  do  this  is 
the  peculiar  work  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 

*  Works,  vol.  vi,  p.  2t0.  \  Notes,  in  loco. 


The  "  Wesleyan  Axiom."  147 


Thus  it  appears  that  John  Wesley  held  that  the  min- 
istry— tlie  pastoral  elders  called  of  God  and  elected  by 
the  people — were  the  rulers  of  the  Church,  and  that 
this  was  of  perpetual  and  divine  obligation.  In  support 
of  this  proposition  he  frequently  appealed  to  "  the  ora- 
cles of  God,"  and  taught  that  the  optional  in  Church 
government  is  the  domain  over  which  the  Scriptures 
have  enthroned  the  pastor,  elder,  or  bishop. 

"  The  sura  is,"  he  says,  "  it  is  the  duty  of  every  pri- 
vate Christian  to  obey  his  spiritual  pastor,  by  either 
doing  or  leaving  undone  any  thing  of  an  indifferent 
[that  is,  optional]  nature — that  is,  any  thing  in  no  way 
determined  in  the  word  of  God.  But  how  little  is  this 
understood  in  the  Protestant  world!  ,  .  .  And  yet 
there  is  not  a  more  express  command,  either  in  the 
Old  or  New  Testament,  No  words  can  be  more 
clear  and  plain;  no  command  more  direct  and  posi- 
tive." * 

And  yet  "  these  words,  clear  and  plain  ;  this  com- 
mand, direct  and  positive,"  by  clothing  the  pastor  with 
authority  in  all  things,  indifferent  or  optional,  carries 
his  prerogative  as  '■'■legislator''''  over  the  whole  field  of 
"  rules  and  regulations  "  in  the  spiritual  administration 
of  the  Church — a  field  bounded  on  the  one  hand  by  what 
God  has  positively  commanded,  and  on  the  other  by 
■what  God  has  expressly  forbidden.  Thus  the  "  Wes- 
leyan axiom,"  so  far  from  giving  freedom  /rom  the 
Scriptures  in  Church  government,  as  most  have 
strangely  supposed,  gives  freedom  only  to  the  book, 
sets  us  face  to  face  with  the  open  word,  and  bids 
*Ser.,  vol.  ii,  p.  327. 


148      Principles  of  Church  Government. 


us  bound  our  liberties,  our  option,  by  the  changeless  law 
of  the  Lord.  John  Wesley  says:  "  Try  every  thing  by 
the  written  word;  lei  all  bow  down  before  it."  Luther: 
*'  God  speaks,  men,  worms  listen— let  us  all  bow  down 
and  kiss  the  word,"  And  Chrysostom :  "Hear,  O  all 
ye  laymen!  provide  yourselves  with  the  Holy  Script- 
ures, that  medicine  of  the  soul." 


TmxGS  Forbidden  to  Governoks  of  Cuurcii.  149 


CHAPTER  IX. 

TIIR  THINGS  FORBIDDEN  TO  THE  GOVERNORS  OF  THE 
CHURCH. 

Let  us  now,  in  tlie  very  spirit  of  tliis  "  axiom,"  take 
prayerful  note  of  the  particulars  in  which  the  op- 
tional freedom  of  the  "  governors  of  the  Church "  is 
bounded: 

We  will  first  look  at  the  positive  prohibitions  of  the 
loortl.  The  pastoral  elders  are  forbidden  to  "  lord  it 
over  God's  heritage  " — 

1.  To  lord  it  over  the  bodies  of  men,  to  restrain  the 
person  or  liberty  of  the  laity.  Such  penal  sanctions  be- 
long to  the  civil  magistracy  alone.  That  which  is 
commended  in  the  State  is  positively  forbidden  in  the 
Church,  evidencing  the  measureless  remove  of  the 
Church  from  the  province  and  principles  of  the  State. 
"The  princes  of  the  Gentiles  exercise  dominion  over 
them,  and  they  that  are  great  exercise  authority  upon 
them.  But  it  shall  not  be  so  among  yon.  But  whoso- 
ever will  be  great  among  you,  let  him  be  your  minister  " 
(diffiKovof— literally,  "one  dusty  from  running,"  a  gen- 
uine itinerant!)  "and  whosoever  will  be  chief  among 
you,  let  him  be  your  servant "  (JovAof — literally,  a  slave, 
a  term  expressive  of  the  most  abject  devotion  to  the  in- 
terests of  the  laity).  It  is  to  be  a  ministry  of  service, 
not  of  domination.  But  this  even  does  not  express  the 
depths  to  which,  in  our  loving  service,  all  are  to  go 


150      Principles  of  Church  Government. 

down;  for  tlie  brethren  (the  laity)  are  themselves  the 
slaves  (the  douloi)  of  Jesus.  "  For  he  that  is  called, 
being  free,  is  Christ's  doulos."  1  Cor.  vii,  22,  23.  That 
is  it :  the  slave  of  slaves;  the  free,  self-devoted,  loving 
slaves  of  those  who  are  themselves  the  loving,  devoted 
slave  of  the  Master.  But  only  so  far  as  that;  no  bond- 
age to  mere  majorities — to  the  will  of  man.  God  thun- 
ders :  "  £e  ye  7iot  the  douloi  of  men!'''' 

Here  we  touch  the  native  rock — the  broad,  funda- 
mental, eternal  rock  of  disinterested  love  on  which  the 
Church  of  Jesus  stands — the  ministry  and  the  laity  in 
mutual,  loving,  self-sacriticing  devotion,  as  the  douloi 
of  Jesus  and  of  each  othei",  but  each  in  the  functions 
assigned  by  the  Master,  Christ. 

The  Church  of  Jesus  is  a  personality,  a  spiritual 
selfhood,  a  moral  organism,  "the  body  of  Christ,"  in 
which  every  function  is  to  be  performed  by  its  own 
appropriate  organ. 

Of  "  Him  who  ascended  up  on  l)igh,  far  above  all 
heavens,  who  led  captivity  captive,  and  gave  gifts  to 
men,"  it  is  written  :  "  He  gave  some,  apostles;  and 
some,  prophets;  and  some,  evangelists;  and  some,  pas- 
tors and  teachei's;  for'  the  perfecting  of  the  saints,  for 
the  work  of  the  ministry,  for  the  edifying  of  the  body 
of  Christ:  .  .  .  that  we  may  grow  up  into  him  in  all 
things,  which  is  the  head,  even  Christ:  from  whom  the 
whole  body  fitly  joined  together  and  compacted  by  that 
which  every  joint  supplieth,  according  to  the  eflFectual 
working  in  the  measure  of  every  part,  maketh  increase 
of  the  body  unto  the  edifying  of  itself  in  love."  Eph. 
iv,  8-16.    "  Now  God  hath  set  the  members  every  one 


Things  Forbidden  to  Goveenoks  of  Church.  151 

of  them  in  the  body,  as  it  hath  pleased  hira.  1  Cor. 
xii,  IS.  "  Now  ye  are  the  body  of  Christ,  and  members 
in  particular.  And  God  hath  set  some  in  the  Church, 
first  apostles,  secondarily  prophets,  thirdly  teachers, 
after  that  miracles,  then  gifts  of  healings,  helps,  gov- 
ernments, diversities  of  tongues.  Are  all  apostles  ? 
are  all  prophets  ?  are  all  teachers  ? "  Do  all  speak 
with  tongues?  Do  all  interpret?"  1  Cor.  xii,  27-29. 
"  For  as  we  have  many  members  in  one  body,  and  all 
members  have  not  the  same  office:  so  we,  being  many, 
are  one  body  in  Christ,  and  every  one  members  one  of 
another.  Having  then  gilts  differing  according  to  the 
grace  th:it  is  given  to  us,  whether  prophecy,  let  us 
prophesy  according  to  the  proportion  of  faith;  or  min- 
istry, let  us  wait  on  our  ministering ;  or  he  that  teach- 
eth,  on  teaching;  or  he  that  exhorteth,  on  exhortation: 
he  that  givcth,  let  him  do  it  with  simplicity  ;  lie  that 
ruleth,  with  diligence.''''  Rom.  xii,  4-8. 

This  is  the  foundation  fact :  every  member  of  Christ's 
body  is  Clirist's  doulos,  to  do  the  will  of  the  great  Head 
of  the  Church.  It  is  not  "  optional "  with  ns  what  place 
in  this  sublime  organic  structure  we  may  occupy.  The 
will  of  Christ,  and  self-sacrificing  devotion  to  that  will 
— not  democratic  pride  nor  thirst  for  power — shall  de- 
termine our  sphere.  There  should  be  no  domination, 
no  usurpation,  either  by  minorities  or  majorities;  but 
each  should  submit  himself  to  God.  "  The  visible 
Church  of  Christ  is  a  congregation  of  faithful  men,  in 
which  the  pure  word  of  God  is  preached  and  the  sacra- 
ments duly  administered,  according  to  ChrisCs  ordi- 
nance, ill  all  those  things  that  of  necessity  arc  requisite 


152      Principles  of  Church  Government. 


to  the  sameP  *  And  such  a  Church,  organized  accord- 
ing to  the  "  ordinance  of  Clirist,"  operating  through  its 
divinely  appointed  agencies  or  organs,  "  may  ordain, 
change,  or  abolish  rites  and  ceremonies,  ...  so  that 
nothing  he  ordained  against  God's  word.''''  \ 

2.  Again,  ministers  are  not  to  lord  it  over  the  con- 
sciences of  men.  "  Call  no  man  Kadi^yrjTTjg  (ruler  of  the 
conscience),  for  one  is  your  Master,  even  Christ."  And 
yet  God's  word,  Christ's  law,  which  alone  binds  the  con- 
science, enjoins  obedience  to  pastors  in  all  things  "  op- 
tional," or  where  conscience  is  not  concerned,  "  so  that 
nothing  be  ordained  against  God's  word."  The  twen- 
ty-second article  of  our  religion  sets  forth  this  distinc- 
tion with  great  clearness:  "  Whosoever,  through  his 
private  judgment,  willingly  and  purposely  doth  openly 
break  the  (optional)  rites  and  ceremonies  of  the  Church 
to  which  he  belongs,  which  are  not  repugnant  to  the 
word  of  God,  and  are  approved  by  common  authority^ 
ought  to  be  rebuked  openly  that  others  may  fear,"  etc. 

In  all  matters,  however,  where  conscience  is  con- 
cerned, there  no  human  authority  must  intervene; 
there  the  rights,  the  integrity  of  the  responsible  soul> 
must  be  respected  ;  there  the  judgment  must  assert  for 
itself;  there  the  pure  reason,  to  which  God  appeals, 
must  vindicate  its  godlike  prerogative,  and,  lifting  it- 
self above  the  domination  of  all  powers,  whether  of 
majorities  or  autocracies,  it  must  decide  as  in  the  sight 
of  God,  and  with  reference  to  the  awards  of  an 
eternity. 

To  such  souls,  enfranchised  of  God,  the  ministry  are 

*  Metlwdist  Discipline.  f  Ibid. 


Things  Forbidden  to  Governors  op  Church.  153 


to  come  not  with  inquisitorial  terrors,  but  with  the  joy- 
ous, robust  spirit  of  free  inquiry.  Thoughts,  not 
thumbscrews;  facts,  not  fagots;  reason,  not  racks;  dem- 
onstrations, not  death  —  these  are  the  agencies  by 
which  a  divinely  commissioned  ministry  are  to  reach  and 
sway  the  fi'ee  and  independent  judgments  of  the  world 
— the  self-poised  wills  and  the  quickened  consciences  of 
the  race.  As  inviolate  as  the  conscience  of  the  laity,  so 
must  the  conscience  of  the  ministry  be.  Let  no  major- 
ities bar  that  conscience. 

3.  The  ministry  are  forbidden  to  lord  it  over  the 
hopes  and  fears  of  men  by  ruling  with  hierarchical 
powers.  The  hiertis,  or  sacerdotal  priests,  called  by 
the  Hebrews  cohenim,  "  were  appointed  lor  the  express 
purpose  of  offering  sacrifices  in  the  name  and  on  behalf 
of  the  people.  They  alone  were  allowed  to  make  ob- 
lations and  burn  incense  before  the  Lord,  and  only 
through  them  were  the  people  to  approach  him.''''  * 

The  usurpation  of  governmental  powers  by  men 
clothed  with  the  awful  terrors  of  so  sacred  an  office  has 
always  resulted  in  the  most  fearful  despotisms  known 
in  the  annals  of  mankind.  A  hierarchy  is  the  most  un- 
scriptural  of  all  governments,  hostile  alike  to  the  spirit 
of  both  dispensations.  Nothing  could  be  more  offensive 
to  God.  Hear  the  word  of  the  Lord :  "A  wonderful  and 
horrible  thing  is  committed  in  the  land ;  the  prophets 
prophesy  falsely,  and  the  priests  bear  rule  by  their 
means ;  and  my  people  love  to  have  it  so  and  Avhat 
will  he  do  in  the  end  thereof  ?  "    Jor.  v,  30,  31. 

"  The  rulers  of  the  Church  under  the  Gosi)e!,"  says 
*  Arclibisliop  Whatel}-,  Brit  Cych'p.,  vol.  i. 


154      Principles  of  Chuech  Government. 


Stillingfleet,  "do  not  jJi-operly  succeed  the  priests  and 
the  Levites  under  the  law."*  "The  Levitical  caste," 
says  Stanley,  "never  corresponded  to  what  we  should 
call  the  clergy.  They  (the  priests)  never  claimed  nor 
were  intended  to  govern  the  nation.""  f  And  yet  the  cry, 
Hierarchy !  hierarchy  !  (the  rule  of  priests,)  has  been 
rung  out  over  all  the  Church.  A  hierarchy  !  the  simple 
rule  of  the  jn-esbuteroi  (not  the  hiereis),  called  of  God, 
and  elected  by  the  people.  Amazing  !  The  only 
"  hierarchy "  of  which  we  have  knowledge  in  Meth- 
odism to-day — the  rule  of  the  hiereis — "  clothed  in 
pontifical  robes,"  is  that  of  the  so-called  "priesthood  of 
the peajjle,"  who  claim  the  right  to  rule  the  Church  of 
God  by  virtue  of  their  sacerdotal  or  priestly  functions  ! 
"  The  priesthood  of  the  people,"  says  the  authority,  "  is 
the  dogmatic  basis  of  the  lay  movement."  What ! 
when  "priests  were  never  intended  to  govern!  "  when 
a  hierarchy — the  government  of  priests — is  so  justly 
offensive  to  both  God  and  man  !  Amazing !  And  yet 
on  this  "  bridge  of  fog  "  the  "  lay  movement "  has  gone 
over:  "A  wonderful  and  horrible  thing  is  committed 
in  the  land  !  the  priests  bear  rule,  and  the  people  love 
to  have  it  so  !  " 

No,  the  hiereis,  the  cohenim,  the  Levitical  priests 
were  never  the  rulers.  The  zakenhn,  "  the  elders  of 
Israel,"  says  Dr.  Strong's  Cyclopedia,  "had  been  the 
{yeQovaia)  senate  of  the  people  ever  since  they  had 
been  a  people.  The  position  which  the  elders  held  in 
the  Mosaic  constitution  is  described  as  that  of  repre- 
sentatives of  the  people,  so  much  so  that  the  elders  and 
*  Irenicum,  p.  228.  \  Jewish  Church,  p.  176. 


Things  Forbidden  to  Governors  of  Church.  155 

people  are  occasionally  used  as  equivalent  terms. 
Their  authority  was  undefined,  and  extended  to  all 
matters  pertaining  to  the  public  weal  ;  nor  did  the 
people  question  the  validity  of  their  acts  even  when 
they  disapproved  of  them."  "The  creation  of  the 
office  of  elder  is  nowhere  I'ecorded  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, as  is  the  case  of  deacons  and  apostles,  because  the 
latter  offices  were  created  to  meet  new  and  special 
emergencies,  while  the  former  Avas  transmitted  from 
the  earliest  times.  In  other  words,  the  office  of  the 
elder  tons  the  only  permanent  essential  office  of  the  Church 
under  either  dispensation."  The  distinguished  doctor 
goes  on  to  say,  "  The  elders  of  the  New  Testament 
were  plainly  pastors  (Eph.  iv,  11),  bishops,  or  over- 
seers (Acts  XX,  28),  leaders  and  riders  (Ileb.  xiii,  7,  17) 
of  the  flock.  .  .  .  But  they  were  not  only  leaders  and 
rulers,  but  also  the  regular  teachers  of  the  congrega- 
tion, to  whom  pertained  officially  the  exposition  of  the 
Scriptures  and  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel!  "  There- 
fore all  hail  the  lay  movement — the  priesthood  of  the 
people! 

"  The  world  has  gone  mad,  my  masters  I  " 

The  "  priesthood  of  believers,"  as  set  forth  in  the 
Scriptures,  is  a  glorious  doctrine,  and  we  would  like  to 
aid  our  friends  in  "  scattering  it  like  lightning  over  all 
the  heavens  of  the  Church."  As  the  original  etymology 
of  the  term  cohen  in  Arabic  and  Hebrew  would  indi- 
cate, it  is  the  exalted  privilege  of  the  priesthood  of  the 
people  "  to  draw  near  "  the  divine  presence — to  enter 
the  holiest  of  holies  by  the  blood  of  Jesus,  and  to  pre- 
vail with  God.    This  is  the  ladder  Jacob  saw  reach- 


156      Principles  of  Church  Government: 


ing  unto  heaven,  but  is  no  bridge  to  earthly  rule.  It 
is  the  devout  prostration  of  the  soul  before  God,  not 
the  domination  of  man  over  man. 

To  those  who  have  set  forth  this  general  priesthood 
of  believers  as  incompatible  with  a  special  ministry  we 
would  simply  refer  them  to  Exod.  xix,  5,  6 :  "  If  ye 
will  obey  niy  voice  and  keep  my  covenant,  then  ye 
shall  be  unto  me  a  kingdom  of  priests  and  a  holy 
nation."  Did  this  general  priesthood  of  the  people  in 
the  time  of  Moses  preclude  a  special  priesthood  then? 
Why  should  it  preclude  a  special  ministry  now?  It 
mortifies  me  very  much  to  be  compelled  to  say  that 
the  antagonism  of  a  general  priesthood  of  the  people 
to  the  authority  of  the  elders  called  of  God  to  govern 
in  tlie  Church  dates  back  to  a  very  high  antiquity. 
"  And  they  rose  up  before  Moses,  with  certain  of  the 
children  of  Israel,  two  hundred  and  fifty  princes  of  the 
assembly,  famous  in  the  congregation,  men  of  renown : 
and  they  gathered  themselves  together  against  Moses 
and  against  Aaron,  and  said  unto  them.  Ye  take  too 
much  upon  you,  seeinrf  all  the  congregation  are  holy, 
every  one  of  them,  and  the  Lord  is  among  them :  where- 
fore then  lift  ye  up  yourselves  above  the  coiigregation 
of  the  Lord?  Num.  xvi,  2,  3.  God  immediately  gave 
to  all  Israel,  in  the  fate  of  these  distinguished  advocates, 
some  lessons  as  to  the  merit  of  such  movements  against 
the  authority  of  those  whom  God  "  hath  chosen,"  the  sal- 
utary effects  of  which  seem  to  have  been  quite  lost  of 
late.  Perhaps  the  Lord  has  changed !  Perhaps  the 
whole  grand  series  of  object  lessons  which  taught  the 
world  that  God  was  attentive  to  every  thing  in  the 


Things  Fouhioden  to  Goverxoes  of  Church.  157 


old  dispensation — that  "  every  pin  of  the  tabernacle 
was  important " — was  only  to  demonstrate  to  us  that 
the  great  Head  of  the  Church  under  the  Gospel  cares 
Jor  nothing ! 

4.  Again,  tlie  ministry  have  no  authority  to  lord  it 
over  the  private  rights  of  the  laity.  In  all  cases  of 
trespass  Jesus  has  imi)aneled  the  whole  Church  as 
jurors.  Christ  ordains,  let  every  man  be  tried  before 
his  peers.  But  who  would  affirm  that  because  of  the 
juror  right  in  a  case  of  trespass,  therefore  every  member 
of  the  Church  or  State  is  a  legislator  to  enact,  an 
official  judge  to  expound  the  law,  or  to  pronounce 
judgment  in  the  case?  The  sentence,  "Let  him  be  to 
thee  as  a  heathen  and  a  publican,"  carries  the  mind  to 
a  conclusion  at  once  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  entire 
scope  of  Scripture,  and  presents  us  here  again  with  the 
spiritual  personality  of  the  Church,  a  moral  organism, 
performing  its  appropriate  functions  through  its  OAvn 
divinely  apjiointed  organs, 

5.  The  ministry  are  forbidden  "to  lord  it"  over  the 
finances  of  the  laity.  The  right  of  taxation  belongs  to 
the  State,  not  to  the  Church.  It  is  only  in  those  abnor- 
mal and  execrable  unions  of  Church  and  State  that  the 
arbitrary  may  supplant  the  voluntary  principle  which 
lies  at  the  very  foundations  of  all  scriptural  Church 
movements.  God,  the  alone  proprietor,  has  the  sole 
right  to  tax  the  clergy  and  the  laity;  God  only  can 
ordain  that  every  member  of  the  Church  shall  "  iay  by 
him  in  store  as  God  hath  prospered  him."  "Say  I 
these  things  as  a  man?"  asks  Paul,  "or  saitli  not  the 
law  the  same  also  ?    For  it  is  written  in  the  law  of 


158 


Principles  of  Church  Government. 


Moses,  Thou  shalt  not  muzzle  the  moutli  of  the  ox  that 
treadeth  out  the  corn.  Doth  God  take  care  for  oxen  ? 
.  .  .  Do  ye  not  know  that  they  which  minister  about 
holy  things  live  of  the  things  of  the  temple  ?  and  they 
which  wait  at  the  altar  are  partakers  with  the  altar  ? 
Even  so  hath  the  Lord  ordained  that  they  which  preach 
the  Gospel  should  live  of  the  Gospel."  1  Cor.  ix,  8,  9, 
13,  14.  "Let  him  that  is  taught  in  the  word  commu- 
nicate unto  him  that  teacheth  in  all  good  tihngs." 
Gal.  vi,  6. 

From  these  enactments  of  the  Lord  ministers  have 
no  authority  to  absolve  the  laity. 

And  yet,  forsooth,  it  is  declared  that  "  the  General 
Conference  has  enacted  a  new  and  unscriptural  condi- 
tion of  Church  membership;"  that  the  General  Con- 
ference has  proceeded  to  "tax  the  membership;"  and 
that  "  laymen  ought  at  once  to  be  admitted ; "  that  if 
Dr.  Bond  and  Bishop  Emory,  these  old  veterans  in  op- 
position, were  but  to  come  to  life  under  the  new  order 
of  things  "  they  would  declare  at  once  for  lay  delega- 
tion," and,  flinging  out  their  banners,  would  head  the 
column  of  laymen,  and  charge  for  the  very  center  of 
the  General  Conference,  etc.  We  are  alarmed  !  What 
new  condition  ?  What  "  act  "  of  taxation  ?  What  new 
order  of  things  ? 

"  Quest.  Will  you  contribute  of  your  earthly  substance 
according  to  your  ability  (as  God  hath  prospered  you) 
to  the  support  of  the  Gospel  and  the  various  benevo- 
lent enterprises  of  the  Church?"  "  Aiis.  I  will."  "A 
new  condition  !  "  Our  editors  surely  never  could  have 
read  that  most  brilliant  epitome  of  our  faith  and  prac- 


Things  Forbiddicn  to  Governoks  of  Church.  159 


tice  giveu  by  one  of  the  mothers  in  Israel,  so  often 
quoted  on  Wesleyan  platforms  in  England  :  "  Meth- 
odism—it is  repentance  toward  God,  faith  in  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  a  penny  a  week,  and  a  shilling  a  quarter." 
"  A  new  condition  ! "  That  old  lady's  spirit  should 
have  been  aroused.  She  should  have  expressed  her 
mind.  "  Organs  "  should  have  been  established,  docu- 
ments circulated,  conventions  held,  and  a  revolution  on 
the  "  no  representation  no  taxation  "  basis  inaugurated, 
and  short  work  have  been  made  with  John  Wesley. 
"  A  new  condition  !  "  If  there  ever  was  an  impression 
epidemic  in  all  Methodistic  space,  and  chronic  in  all 
Methodistic  history,  it  is  the  impression  that  there  is 
HO  end  to  Methodistic  giving  !  But,  seriously,  have 
our  preachers  recourse  to  the  law  for  the  collection  of 
their  salaries  ?  Are  the  assessments  upon  the  members 
made  by  ministers?  Do  the  laymen  now  coming  in 
propose  to  tax  the  laity,  and  to  enforce  collection  by 
the  secular  arm?  Could  Dr.  Bond  or  Emory,  rising 
from  their  hallowed  graves,  pronounce  a  benediction 
upon  a  procedure  so  preposterous  ?  Alas  this  is  but 
another  arch  of  the  "bridge  of  fog"  fallen  tlu'ongh  ! 

6.  The  ministry  are  forbidden  to  usurp  the  secular 
functions  of  the  laitj^,  especially  enjoined  upon  them  by 
the  word  of  God.  Read  carefully  Acts  vi,  2-7,  and  you 
wmU  learn  how  "seven  men  (laymen)  of  honest  report" 
were  by  the  divinely  inspired  apostles  appointed  over 
all  the  temporal  business  of  the  Church. 

7.  The  ministry  have  no  lordly  power  to  prevent  the 
exercise  of  the  theo-democratic  right  of  the  laity  to 
choose  their  own  spiritual  pastors  or  rulers. 


160      Principles  of  Church  Government. 


In  Alford's  English  New  Testament  Acts  xiv,  23,  is 
thus  rendored  :  "And  when  they  had  elected  them 
elders  in  every  church,"  etc.  ;  and  in  his  notes  on  the 
Greek  text  he  says,  "  Nor  is  there  any  reason  for  de- 
parting from  the  usual  meaning  of  electing  by  show  of 
hands,"  and  adds,  The  apostles  may  have  admitted  by 
ordination  those  presbyters  whom  the  churches  elected  " 
(in  loco). 

The  New  Testament  method  allows  God  to  cast  the 
first  ballot,  the  people  themselves  being  judges  of  the 
evidences  of  the  divine  call  ;  and  such  a  one,  so  chosen 
by  the  suffrages  of  the  whole  Church,  is  as  emjihatic- 
ally  the  representative  of  the  people  as  though  he  were 
not  by  virtue  of  his  divine  call  "  the  glory  of  Christ.'" 
Fully  conscious  of  the  powerful  and  constant  pressure 
of  the  democratic  sentiment  in  our  free  country,  which 
has  at  last  brought  the  leading  writers  of  our  Church 
to-day  into  direct  and  almost  unanimous  conflict  with 
all  the  great  founders  of  Methodism — nay,  more,  that 
has  brought  the  authoritative  action  of  the  Church  to 
the  solemn  objurgation  of  the  very  principles  upon 
which  the  Church  w.is  organized — we  can  but  express 
our  prof  oundest  regrets  that  our  leaders  had  not  sought 
to  harmonize  our  polity  not  only  with  the  spirit  of  the 
age,  but  Avith  the  eternal  principle  of  God's  word,  not 
by  denying  to  the  eldership  the  authority  which  all  our 
fathers  believed  they  held  by  divine  right,  but  by  a 
tliorough  examination  of  the  theo-democratic  basis  on 
which  that  authority  rests.  Would  to  heaven  that  we 
had  begun  to  modify  our  system  at  the  other  extreme 
by  rendering  to  the  people,  to  the  entire  adult  member- 


TmxGs  Forbidden  to  Governors  of  Church.  161 


ship,  what  we  have  consistently  held  theoretically  from 
the  beginning  to  be  their  right,  the  right  to  choose 
their  rulers,  their  elders,  their  presbyters  or  bishops, 
those  whom  the  people  believe  are  fully  qualified  and 
called  of  God  to  that  responsible  work  I 

8.  Lastly,  the  ministry  have  no  lordly  power  or  au- 
thority to  bar  the  laity  from  the  performance  of  their 
legitimate  functions  in  the  General  Councils  of  the 
Church.  The  laity  were  present  in  the  first  General 
Council — in  all  the  great  councils — of  the  primitive 
Church,  but  with  their  own  peculiar  functions.* 

So  the  laity  by  right  ought  to  be  present  in  the  Gen- 
eral Councils  or  Conferences  of  Methodism,  and  their 
voices  should  be  heard  if  they  so  desire  in  all  the 
deliberations  of  the  Church,  but  according  to  the  plan 
and  will  of  God. 

*  For  proof  see  Cliapter  XVII. 

11 


162      Principles  of  Church  Govei;nmii:nt. 


CHAPTER  X. 

THE  OPTIONAL  IN  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT. 

From  this  brief  survey  of  tlie  liniitalious  of  our  lib- 
erties we  may  safely  lay  down  the  following  proposi- 
tions: 

1.  It  is  optional  with  the  people  either  to  exercise  or 
not  to  exercise  an  evident  scriptural  right — a  i-ight 
Methodism  has  always  acknowledged — a  right  to  par- 
ticipate more  generally  in  the  primary  election  of  all 
our  Church  rulers. 

2.  It  is  optional  with  the  members  of  the  Church,  ac- 
cording as  in  their  godly  jiidgiaeut  the  secular  interests 
of  the  Church  may  rc(juire,  eitlier  to  enter  or  refrain 
from  entering  tlw  Auimal  or  General  Conferences.  If 
in  their  judgment  the  secular  interests  of  the  Church 
are  suff'ering  tl-.rough  tlieir  absence,  they  ought  to  de- 
mand admittance,  for  tliey  are  ch  irgcd  especially  with 
the  department  of  set  ularities,  and  "  it  is  required  of 
stewards  that  a  man  be  found  faithful." 

3.  It  would  not  be  optional  with  the  presbyters  to 
refuse  to  accede  to  tliis  demand,  for  the  word  places 
on  them  the  especial  care  of  all  sccularities  in  the 
Church. 

4.  It  is,  however,  optional  with  the  presbyters,  as 
they  have  been  called  and  elected  to  the  general  over- 
sight of   all   the   interests   of  the   Church,  as  to 


The  Optional  in  Cuuacu  Goveknment.  163 


whether  this  department  should  be  organized  as  a 
separate  house,  or  as  a  committee  of  their  own 
body  especially  charged  with  tlie  ministration  of 
finance. 

5.  It  is  optional  with  the  body  of  the  Presbytery  or 
governors  of  the  Church,  as  it  shall  seem  expedient, 
eitlicr  to  retain  all  governing  power  as  a  senate  of 
ciders,  as  a  committee  of  the  whole,  or  to  organize  in 
separate  committees  with  distinctive  functions.  In 
other  words,  it  is  optional  with  the  presbt/ters  to  enact 
any  "particular  form,"  any  "determinate  plan,"  of 
Church  government  consonant  to  the  general  rules  of 
Scripture,  with  such  "offices  and  officers"  as  they  may 
deem  expedient. 

6.  It  is  optional  with  the  presbyters  to  delegate  to  one 
or  more  of  their  oio7i  number — not  to  the  people — for  a 
limited  time,  or  during  ctfective  service,  one  or  more 
of  the  scriptural  functions  of  the  presbytery,  for  the 
good  of  the  Church;  but  it  is  not  o])tional  with  even  a 
majority  of  the  presbyters  to  deprive  a  presbyter  in 
good  standing  of  any  prerogatives  against  his  will.  Our 
bishops,  as  scriptural  presbyters  in  order  and  general 
superintendents  in  office,  cannot  be  lawfully  denied  a 
voice  in  making  rules  and  regulations  for  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Church  of  God. 

7.  It  would  be  optional  for  the  presbyters,  if  they  saw 
expedient  for  the  safety  of  the  Church  against  hasty 
legislation,  to  divide  their  own  number  into  tw^o  houses. 
It  would  be  optional  to  so  divide  that  either  one  half 
of  the  bishops  should  be  in  each  house,  or  so  that  one 
bodj  might   appropriately  be  styled  the  House  of 


164      Pbiitciples  of  Church  Government. 


General  Superintendents,  and  the  otlier  the  House  of 
Presbyters. 

8.  It  would  also  be  optional  with  the  bishops  and 
presbyters  to  associate  with  them  a  third  house  of  the 
laity,  but  not,  as  in  tlie  Episcopal  Church,  with  power 
to  bar  the  action  of  both  the  houses  of  bishops  and 
presbyters.  That  would  be  in  direct  violation  of  the 
fundamental  principles  of  scriptural  Church  govern- 
ment; that  would  do  violence  to  tlie  constitution  of  the 
Methodist  Church  as  it  has  existed  from  the  beginning ; 
a  virtual  uprooting  and  upturning  of  the  ecclesiastical 
tree  as  Christ  planted  it,  placing  blossoms  and  fruit 
under  the  soil  with  roots  in  the  air. 

9. -  It  would  be  optional  for  the  General  Conference 
at  any  time  to  organize,  as  Bisliop  Ames  at  the  last 
General  Conference  suggested  with  thoroughly  states- 
manlike views,  in  two  houses,  with  concurrent  powers 
on  all  subjects  excepting  "  ministerial  administration 
and  character;"  or,  if  it  should  be  thought  expedient, 
it  will  be  optional  to  organize  three  houses  witli  concur- 
rent powers  on  all  subjects,  yet  saving  the  scrii)tural 
and  Methodistic  principle  of  pastoral  authority,  by 
making  the  concurrence  of  but  two  houses  necessary  to 
complete  an  action — the  responsibility  of  every  action, 
of  course,  resting  with  one  or  the  other  of  the  clerical 
bodies.  In  case  of  the  organization  of  three  concurrent 
houses,  the  initiative  in  all  measures  relating  to  moral 
discipline,  ministerial  adrainstration  and  the  ritual 
should  be  with  the  House  of  Presbyters;  the  initiative 
in  all  measures  relating  to  finance,  publishing  interests, 
etc.,  should  originate  in  the  House  of  Lay  Representa- 


The  Optional  in  Church  Government.  165 


tives;  the  House  of  General  Superintendents,  as  the 
chief  pastors  of  tlie  Church,  alone  having  a  negative 
upon  the  action  of  the  House  of  Lay  Representatives. 

In  favor  of  such  an  optional  organization  we  urge  the 
following  considerations: 

1.  It  saves  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  Holy 
Scripture  relating  to  the  duty  of  the  Christian  ministry, 
as  the  douloi  of  Jesus  Christ,  to  serve  the  Church  as  its 
pastoral  governors. 

2.  It  will  save  not  only  the  spirit  of  the  Wesleyan 
axiom,  but  the  very  organic  spirit  of  Methodism,  as  em- 
bodied by  John  Wesley,  John  Fletcher,  Richard  Wat- 
son, John  Emory,  and  Dr.  Bond — the  authoritative  rule 
of  pastors  called  of  God  and  elected  by  the  people,  a 
principle  worth  saving. 

3.  It  can  save  us  our  reproach  in  a  thoroughly  demo- 
cratic age.  (a)  Let  the  right  of  elective  franchise  be 
extended  to  the  entire  adult  membership  in  all  our 
primary  elections  to  the  Annual  Conferences,  so  that  our 
preachers  recommended  for  admission  and  our  laymen 
sent  up  shall  alike  be  the  representatives  of  the  people. 
{h)  Let  all  members  of  the  Annual  Conferences,  lay  and 
clerical,  join  in  the  election  of  all  delegates  to  the  Gen- 
eral Conference,  so  that  these  delegates,  both  clerical 
and  lay,  shall  be  the  recognized  representatives  of  the 
people  in  the  "law-making"  body  of  the  Church,  but 
each  in  the  field  of  their  own  respective  responsibilities, 
(c)  Let  these  representatives  of  the  people  unite  in  the 
election  of  all  bishops  and  other  officers  of  the  General 
Conference,  and  by  thus  constituting  our  bishops  them- 
selves "  the  messengers,"  "  the  chosen  of  the  Churches," 


166       Principles  op  Church  Government. 


as  well  as  "  the  glory  of  Clirist,"  we  shall  secure  a  gen- 
uine representation  of  the  people  in  every  branch  of 
our  legislative  councils.  Who  is  it  that  maintains  that 
the  ministry  is  a  caste,  and  cannot,  tlierefore,  represent 
the  people?  "If  any,  speak;  for  hira  have  I  of- 
fended." 

4.  It  will  save  us  from  bitterness  and  ceaseless  con- 
flicts. The  spirit  of  ant<i(jojiisin  is  in  "the  plan" — 
incorporate  and  constitutional.  The  poison  of  asps  is 
there:  jealousy  shall  express  it,  and  ambition  shall  pro- 
ject it  into  the  very  soul  of  the  Church,  poisoning  its 
life  currents,  and  leading  ultimately  to  the  utter  disso- 
lution of  the  body. 

5.  It  will  save  us  from  the  odium  of  lay  popery, 
possible  under  the  present  plan  of  organization.  "  At 
all  times  when  the  General  Conference  is  met,  it  shall 
take  two  thirds  of  the  wliole  number  of  ministerial  and 
lay  delegates  to  form  a  quorum  for  the  transaction  of 
business."  It  does  not  say  two  thirds  of  either 
order  elect,  but  "  two  thirds  of  the  whole  number."  (!  !) 
"The  whole  number  of  ministeriid  and  lay  delegates  " 
in  the  present  body  is  421,  of  whom  292  are  clerical 
and  129  are  lay.  Two  thirds  of  tliis  "whole  number" 
is  280f,  a  "quorum."  With  280  ministerial  delegates 
and  one  lay  delegate  present  we  have  281,  or  one  third  of 
one  more  than  "  two  thirds  of  the  whole  number,"  (!I)  and 
with  this  "  quorum"  the  body  is  ready,  of  course,  for  the 
"  transaction  of  business."  (!!)  But  the  ministerial  and 
lay  delegates  "shall  vote  separately  whenever  such  sejj- 
arate  vote  shall  be  demanded  by  one  third  of  either 
order  (in  the  quorum,  of  course),  and  in  such  cases  the 


The  Optionat,  in  Church  Government.  167 


concurrent  vote  of  both  orders  shall  be  necessary  to 
complete  an  action."  (!!)  It  is  nowhere  said,  when- 

ever such  separate  vote  shall  be  demanded  by  one  third 
of  the  whole  number  elected  m  either  order;  and,  indeed, 
as  seen  above,  such  a  construction  is  not  at  all  necessary 
to  secure  a  "  quorum."  So,  if  one  third  of  this  layman 
in  excess  of  the  "  quorum  "  shall  demand  a  separate  vote, 
and  two  thirds  of  him  "  refuse  to  concur/ "  we  have  at 
least  in  this  possible  instance  the  only  2^(^ssible pope  in 
Methodism,  barring,  by  his  individual  will,  not  only  the 
scriptural  authority  of  the  280  ministerial  delegates,  but 
through  them  the  ten  thousand  ministers  of  the  Method- 
ist Church.  And  this  is  democracy!  this  is  what  is 
meant  by  "no  distinctions!"  O!  it's  only  the  "nine- 
teenth century !  "  A  lay  pope  possible!  and  you  "ac- 
cept the  situation?"  "  Yes,"  "yes;"  two  hundred  and 
ninety  times  "yes."  Talk  of  an  "eternity"  as  too  long 
for  opposition  to  such  a  "plan?"  No,  sir.  "  Aiuvag 
ro)v  aiuvorv^^ — "For  ever  and  for  ever." 

G.  It  will  save  us  from  the  evils  that  inevitably  in- 
here in  all  singly  constituted  deliberative  bodies,  and 
which,  in  a  body  like  ours,  under  such  a  pressure  of  busi- 
ness and  limited  in  time,  must  be  enhanced  to  an  alarm- 
ing degree. 

The  law-making  bodies  of  the  several  States  of  our 
American  Union  have  set  examples  which  we  will  do 
well  to  follow.  The  Legislatures  of  Pennsylvania  and 
Georgia  consisted  originally  of  a  single  house.  "  The 
instability  and  passion,"  says  Chancellor  Kent,  "which 
markcil  their  proceedings  were  very  visible  at  the  time, 
and  the  subject  of  much  public  animadversion;  and  iu 


168       Principles  op  Church  Government. 


the  subsequent  reform  of  their  constitutions  the  people 
were  so  sensible  of  this  defect,  and  of  the  inconvenience 
they  had  suffered  from  it,  that  in  both  States  a  senate 
was  introduced.  No  portion  of  the  political  history  of 
mankind  is  more  full  of  instructive  lessons  on  this  sub- 
ject, or  contains  more  striking  proofs  of  the  faction, 
instability,  and  misery  of  States  under  the  dominion  of 
a  single  uncliecked  assembly,  than  that  of  the  Italian 
republics  of  the  Middle  Ages,  which  arose  with  gi-eat 
numbers,  and  with  dazzling  but  transient  splendor,  in 
the  interval  between  the  fall  of  the  Western  and  the 
Eastern  empires  of  the  Romans.  They  were  all  alike 
ill-constituted,  with  a  single  unbalanced  assembly. 
They  were  all  alike  miserable,  and  all  ended  in  similar 
disgrace.  Many  speculative  writers  and  theoretical 
politicians  about  the  time  of  the  commencement  of  the 
French  Revolution  were  struck  with  the  simplicity  of  a 
legislature  with  a  single  assembly,  and  concluded  that 
more  than  one  house  was  useless  and  expensive.  .  .  . 
The  visionai'y  notions  [this  is  still  Chancellor  Kent]  of  a 
single  house  of  the  legislature  were  carried  into  the 
constitution  by  the  French  Assembly  in  1Y91.  'The 
very  nature  of  things,'  said  the  intemperate  and  cruel 
politicians  of  that  assembly,  '  was  adverse  to  every  di- 
vision of  the  legislative  body,  and  that  as  the  nation 
which  was  represented  was  one,  so  the  representative 
body  ought  to  be  one  also.  The  will  of  the  nation  was 
indivisible,  and  so  ought  to  be  the  voice  that  pro- 
nounced  it.'  By  such  reasoning  the  Assembly  of 
France,  consisting  of  upward  of  one  thousand  mem- 
bers, after  a  short  and  tumultuous  debate,  almost  unan- 


The  Optional  in  Church  Government.  169 


imously  voted  to  reject  the  proposition  for  an  upper 
house.  The  same  false  and  vicious  principles  continued 
for  some  time  longer  to  prevail  with  the  theorists  of 
that  country,  and  a  single  house  was  likewise  established 
in  the  plan  of  government  for  1793.  The  instability 
and  violent  measures  of  that  convention,  which  con- 
tinued for  some  years  to  fill  all  Europe  with  astonish- 
ment and  horror,  tended  to  display  in  a  most  forcible 
and  affecting  light  the  miseries  of  a  single  unchecked 
body  of  men  clothed  with  all  the  legislative  power  of 
the  State."  * 

"No  people,"  says  Boisy  d'Anglas  in  1795,  "can  tes- 
tify to  the  world  with  more  truth  and  sincerity  than 
Frenchmen  can  do  the  dangers  inherent  in  a  single 
legislative  assembly,  and  the  disastrous  point  to  which 
factions  may  mislead  an  assembly  without  reins  or 
counterpoise." 

The  theories  and  consequent  convulsions  of  the 
French  National  Assembly  led  John  Adams  to  give  to 
the  world  his  great  work  entitled,  A  Defense  of  the 
American  Constitution,  a  work  of  immense  learning, 
research,  and  ability.  After  reviewing  the  history  of 
every  known  government  with  especial  reference  to  this 
point,  he  gives  us  the  sum  of  all  in  the  conclusion: 
"  Single  assemblies  without  check  or  balance  in  a  gov- 
ernment, with  all  authority  collected  into  one  center, 
have  been  visionary,  violent,  intriguing,  corrupt,  and 
tyrannical  dominations  of  majorities  over  minorities." 

"  Under  the  Confederation,"  says  Chief  Justice 
Story,  "  the  whole  legislative  power  of  the  Union  was 
*  Kent's  Commentiv  y,  p.  122. 


170      Pkinciples  of  Ciiukcii  Government. 


confined  to  a  single  brancli,  and,  limited  as  that  power 
was,  this  concentration  of  it  in  a  single  body  was 
deemed  a  prominent  defect.  Tiie  Constitution,  on  the 
other  hand,  adopts  as  a  fundamental  rule  the  exer- 
cise of  the  legislative  power  in  two  distinct  and  in- 
dependent branches.  The  advantages  of  this  division 
are,  in  the  first  place,  that  it  interposes  a  check  upon 
undue,  hasty,  and  oppressive  legislation.  In  the  next 
])lace,  it  interposes  a  barrier  against  the  strong  pro- 
pensity of  all  public  bodies  to  accumulate  all  power, 
patronage,  and  infiuence  in  their  own  hands.  In  the 
next  place,  it  operates  indirectly  to  retard,  if  not 
wholly  to  prevent,  the  success  of  tlie  efforts  of  a  few 
popular  leaders,  by  their  combinations  and  intrigues  in 
a  single  body,  to  carry  their  own  personal,  private,  or 
party  objects  into  effect,  unconnected  with  the  public 
good.  In  the  next  place,  it  secures  a  deliberate  review 
of  the  same  measures  by  independent  minds  in  differ- 
ent branches  ot"  government  engaged  in  the  same  hab- 
its of  legislation,  but  organized  upon  a  different  system 
of  elections.  In  the  last  place  it  affords  greater  secu- 
rities to  public  liberty,  by  requiring  the  co-operation  of 
different  bodies  which  can  scarcely  ever,  if  properly  or- 
ganized, embrace  the  same  sectional  or  local  interests 
or  influences  in  exactly  the  same  proportion  as  a  single 
body.  The  value  of  such  a  separate  organization  will, 
of  course,  be  greatly  enhanced  the  more  the  elements 
of  wliich  each  body  is  composed  difl^er  from  each  other 
in  the  mode  of  choice,  in  the  qualifications,  and  in  the 
duration  of  office  of  members;  provided  due  intelligence 
and  virtue  are  secured  in  each  body.    All  these  consid- 


The  Optional  in  Church  Government,  171 


crations  had  great  weiglit  in  the  convention  which 
framed  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States."  * 

De  Lolme,  in  his  great  work  on  the  English  Consti- 
tution, says :  "  For  securing  the  Constitution  of  the 
State  it  is  indispensably  necessary  to  restrain  the  legis- 
lative authority;  and  the  legislature  to  be  restrained 
must  be  absolutely  divided;  for  whatever  laws  it  may 
make  to  restrain  itself,  they  never  can  be,  relatively  to 
it,  any  thing  more  than  simple  resolutions.  As  those 
bars  which  it  might  erect  to  stop  its  own  motions  must 
then  be  within  it  and  rest  upon  it,  they  can  be  no  bars. 
But  each  of  the  parts  into  which  the  legislature  is  di- 
vided can  serve  as  bars  to  the  motions  of  the  others. 
If  it  has  been  divided  into  only  two  parts,  it  is  proba- 
ble that  they  will  not  in  all  cases  unite  either  for  doing 
or  undoing.  If  it  has  been  divided  into  three  tarts, 
the  probability  that  no  changes  will  be  made  is  greatly 
increased.  Nay,  more,  as  a  kind  of  point  of  honor 
will  naturally  take  place  between  these  different  parts 
of  the  legislatiH-e,  they  will  therefore  be  led  to  offer  to 
each  other  only  such  propositions  as  will,  at  least,  be 
l)lausible,  and  all  very  prejudiced  changes  will  thus  be 
prevented,  as  it  were,  before  their  birth." — P.  231. 

1.  The  life-tenure  of  our  bishops  in  one  of  the  co- 
ordinate branches  of  the  "legislature"  will  save  us 
from  fickle  and  capricious  legislation.  Let  Alexander 
Hamilton — "the  genius  who,"  according  to  Guizot, 
"  most  powerfully  contributed  to  introduce  into  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  every  element  of  or- 
der, of  force,  and  of  duration  in  it,"  and  "  who  must 
*  Story  ou  Constilulioii,  p.  50. 


172 


Principles  of  Chuech  Government. 


be  classed  among  the  men  who  have  best  known  the 
vital  principles  and  fundamental  conditions  of  govern- 
ment worthy  of  the  name" — let  him  speak  for  us: 
"  The  objects  of  government  may  be  divided  into  two 
general  classes — the  one  depending  on  measures  which 
have  singly  an  immeiUate  and  sensible  operation  ;  the 
other  depending  on  a  succession  of  well-chosen  and 
well-connected  measures  which  have  a  gradual  and,  per- 
haps, unobserved  action.  The  importance  of  the  latter 
descrijition  to  the  collective  and  permanent  welfare  of 
every  country  needs  no  explanation.  And  yet  it  is  evi- 
dent that  an  assembly  elected  for  so  short  a  term  as  to 
be  unable  to  provide  more  than  one  or  two  links  in  a 
chain  of  measures  on  which  the  general  welfare  may 
essentially  depend  ought  not  to  be  answerable  for  the 
final  result.  The  proper  remedy  for  this  defect  must 
be  an  additional  body  in  the  legislative  department, 
which,  having  a  sufficient  permanency  to  provide  for 
such  objects  as  require  a  continued  attention  and  a  train 
of  measures,  may  be  justly  and  effectually  answerable 
for  these  objects."  * 

8.  While  the  division  of  the  conference  into  three 
houses  will  secure  the  delay  necessary  to  perfect. each 
individual  measure,  yet,  on  the  principle  that  underlies 
the  practical  wisdom  of  a  division  of  labor  in  the  ag- 
gregate, we  shall  save  time.  This,  however,  to  those 
whiise  souls  are  more  burdened  for  the  present  and 
future  welfare  of  tlie  Churcli  than  for  any  personal  in- 
terests, will  be  but  a  secondary  consideration.  Better 
cut  down  the  i-epresentation,  and  fill  the  delegations 

*  Fedeialist. 


The  Optional  in  Church  Government.  173 


with  men  who  can  anil  will  take  time  before  unsettling 
the  vei-y  foundations  of  the  Church — time  to  Aveigh  the 
value  of  every  proposed  change;  time  to  perfect  every 
measure;  time  to  bring  all  its  legislation  into  symmet- 
rical oneness  and  harmony  with  the  organic  genius  of 
the  Church;  time  to  save  us  from  the  opprobrium  that 
must  more  or  less  attach  to  every  single  assembly  on 
the  "  mass-meeting  "  principle. 

This  is  the  gre.it  transition  movement.  "The  past, 
at  least,  is  secure ;  "  the  future,  with  all  the  burden  of 
untried  experiments,  is  at  our  doors.  O,  could  we 
shape  the  coming  events  into  harmony  with  the  organic 
life  of  the  Church,  the  future  would  be  as  secure  as  tlie 
past !  The  triumphs  of  the  last  century  would  be  re- 
peated, and,  re-enforced  by  the  vigorous  body  of  devout 
and  gifted  laymen,  especially  in  the  department  as- 
signed them  in  the  word  of  God  and  in  the  providen- 
tial demands  of  the  hour,  we  would  sweep  a  wider  field 
of  conquest  for  Jesus  in  the  century  to  come.  For 
such  a  re-enforcement  we  lift  up  hand  and  voice,  and  to 
the  approaching  column  of  laj-men,  loyal  to  the  script- 
ural and  Methodistio  polities  of  the  past,  we  shout 
"All  hail !  "  My  recorded  vote  in  favor  of  the  change 
of  the  restrictive  rule,  indorsing  the  principle  of  a 
Scriptural  and  Methodistic  lay  delegation,  gave  me,  a'* 
I  have  said,  "boundless  pleasure;"  but  for  such  a  coin- 
ing as  shall  bar  the  Christian  ministr]/  in  tlip  fxIp'UnK nt 
of  their  great  commission  I  have  no  words  of 
come.  For  such  tactics  as  shall  give  one  divisiDu  of 
Immanuel's  army  a  dead  lock''''  upon  another  division 
while  obeying  the  orders  of  the  great  Captain  on  the 


174         PUINCU'LES  OF  CllUKCII  GOVEUNMICNT. 


field  of  battle,  I  never  can  say  "  Aye."  Iie-e»force- 
ments,  not  opponents,  in  the  camp  is  the  demand  of  the 
hour.  God's  providence,  God's  word,  the  clergy  and 
])oople,  have  all  called  the  laity  to  enter  the  councils  of 
the  Church,  but  not,  thank  God  !  under  the  provisions 
of  the  plan  proposed.  A  plan  so  odious,  indeed,  that 
it  was  only  barely  possible  to  carry  the  principle  of  lay 
delegation  burdened  with  it  by  the  trifling  majority  of 
forty-four ;  and  this  only  on  reiterated  assurances  that 
"a  plan  for  the  introduction  and  duties  [of  laymen] 
must  be  enacted"  by  the  General  Conference  before 
they  could  come  in — a  promise,  at  least  by  implication, 
of  deliberation  on  the  plan  before  its  enactment ;  so 
odious,  that  several  Conferences,  while  voting  for  the 
principle  of  lay  delegation,  expressed,  in  resolutions, 
their  utter  disapprobation  of  "the  plan;"  so  odious, 
that  the  Michigan  Conference  repudiated  the  plan 
unanimously  by  report* — so  that  if  in  any  sense  the 
plan  was  ever  submitted  to  Conference  action  it  failed, 
through  the  action  of  the  Michigan  Conference  alone, 
by  just  fifty  ministerial  votes,  for  its  ninety-four 
"  aye  "  votes  for  change  of  the  restrictive  rule  must  be 

*  The  Miclilgan  Conference  said:  "1.  The  vote  we  cast  is  solely 
upon  the  change  of  the  restrictive  rule.  2.  AVc  do  not  indorse  the 
plan  proposed  by  tlie  General  Conference  for  our  consideration. 
3.  AViiilo  it  is  a  tiiatter  of  regret  tliat  the  vote  of  the  people  is  not 
larger,  yet  we  regard  the  decisive  m:ij()rity  of  the  votes  cast  in  favor 
of  lay  delegation  as  indicative  of  an  extensive  ileshe  on  tlie  part  of 
tlie  people  for  a  system  of  lay  delegation.  4.  \\q  declare  ourselves 
not  only  not  opposed  to,  bnt  in  favor  of,  a  scheme  of  lay  delegation 
which  shall  not  interfere  with  the  divinely  designated  authority  of 
the  Christian  ministry." 


The  Oitioxal  i\  Ciiukcu  Government.  175 


deducted  from  the  column  in  favor  of  the  plan  ;  so 
odious,  that  we  call  upon  every  lover  of  the  Scripture, 
every  admirer  of  Methodistic  polity,  every  advocate  of 
a  genuine  democracy,  to  unite  with  us  in  a  vigorous 
and  persistent  crusade  against  its  utterly  unmethodistic 
and  utterly  undemocratic  features.  Let  us,  in  God's 
name,  save  our  true  and  loyal  laity  to  the  councils  of 
the  Church;  but  let  us,  in  the  name  of  all  that  is  sacred, 
extirpate  the  2)lfn  ! 

In  its  stead  let  us  build  up  a  great  system  which, 
while  it  shall  conserve  the  fundamental  principles  of 
scriptural  and  Wesleyan  Church  polity,  shall  "  option- 
ally" adjust  its  "particular  form"  to  the  democratic 
spirit  of  the  age  ;  a  system  which  shall  so  distribute 
the  initiative  functions  of  the  legislative  body  on  the 
division  of  labor  principle  as  to  secure  the  fullest  bene- 
fits of  the  peculiar  experience,  education,  and  gifts  of 
our  distinguished  laymen  and  clergy  in  their  respective 
departments,  where  each  shall  be  especially  strongest 
in  the  service  of  the  Church,  and  yet  with  such  a  con- 
currency of  powers  as  shall  constitute  an  impregnable 
rampart  against  the  waves  of  popular  excitement — a 
dike  that  shall  say  to  the  turbid  sea  of  radicalism, 
"Hitherto  thou  shalt  come,  but  no  further." 

"Ezekiel's  vision,"  we  have  been  told,  "  was  a  vision 
of  Methodism,"  and  there  are  at  least  some  striking 
analogies  between  them:  "A  fire  infolding  itself;" 
"  And  the  living  creatures  ran  and  returned  like  light- 
ning;" "And  when  they  went  1  heard  the  noise  of 
their  wings  like  the  noise  of  great  waters;"  "And 
their  appearance  and  work  was  as  it  were  a  wheel  in 


176      Principles  of  Church  Government. 

the  middle  of  a  wheel."  Yes,  here  are  wings  of  love 
and  the  wheels  of  organic  power.  But  let  us  see  what 
is  necessary  to  complete  the  picture :  "  And  above  their 
heads  was  the  likeness  of  a  throne;''''  "And  this  was 
the  appearance  of  the  likeness  of  the  glory  of  the 
Lord;'-  "And  the  Spirit  of  the  living  creature  was  in 
the  wheels;"  "And  the  rings  were  full  of  eyes  [the 
conservatism  of  truth,  principle]  round  about;"  "And 
whither  the  Sj)irit  was  to  go  they  went,  and  turned  not 
when  they  went;"  "And  they  went  every  one  of  them 
STRAIGHT  FORWARD." 


Governmental  Maxims.  177 


CHAPTER  XI. 

GOVERNMENTAL  MAXIMS. 

GLEANED    PROM    DR.  PERRINE'S  MEMORANDUM  BOOKS  AND  MISCELLA- 
NEOUS WIIITIXUS. 

A  CONSTITUTION,  says  Judge  Cooley,  is  sometimes 
defined  as  the  fundamental  law  of  a  state;  containing 
the  principles  upon  which  the  government  is  founded, 
regulating  the  division  of  the  sovereign  powers,  and 
directing  to  what  persons  each  of  these  powers  is  to  be 
confided  and  the  manner  in  which  it  is  to  be  exercised. 
It  is  that  body  of  rules  and  maxims  in  accordance  with 
which  the  powers  of  sovereignty  are  habitually  ex- 
ercised. 

The  constitution,  according  to  Judge  Cooley,  is  higher 
in  authority  than  any  law,  direction,  or  decree  made  by 
any  body  or  any  officer  assuming  to  act  under  it,  since 
such  body  or  officer  must  exercise  a  delegated  author- 
ity, and  that  must  necessarily  be  subservient  to  the  in- 
strument by  which  the  delegation  is  made. 

A  constitution,  says  President  Alden,  of  Jefferson 
College,  is  the  fundamental  law  which  determines  tlie 
form  of  the  government  and  defines  its  powers.  The 
powers  of  the  government  are  limited  by  the  constitu- 
tion. The  government  can  do  only  that  which  tlie  con- 
stitution authorizes  it  to  do.    Tlic  legislature  has  no 

power  to  make  a  law  contrary  to  the  constitution. 
12 


178      Principles  of  Church  Government, 


The  following  sentences  are  taken  from  President 
Al den's  /Science  of  Government : 

"  Justice  is  the  great  end  of  government." 

"  Men  are  born  members  of  the  State  and  snbjects  of 
tlie  law." 

"  Sir  James  Mcintosh's  definition  of  liberty  is  '  se- 
curity against  wrong.'" 

"  No  man  can  claim  the  right  to  do  wrong.  Liberty 
does  not  consist  in  the  privilege  of  self-government, 
nor  is  it  necessarily  the  result  of  the  privilege  of  self- 
government." 

"Liberty  is  the  result  of  wise  and  just  laws  faithfully 
executed." 

"It  is  the  maxim  of  the  British  Constitution  that  the 
king  never  dies.'''' 

"A  republic  is  that  form  of  government  in  which 
the  supreme  power  is  vested  in  the  people,  or  represen- 
tatives elected  by  the  people." 

"  That  man  who  says  that  representatives  of  the  peo- 
ple are  to  do  the  will  of  their  constituents  neither  un- 
derstands the  science  of  the  American  government  or 
any  other.  A  Webster,  a  Marshall,  a  Madison,  to  throw 
away  their  own  convictions  and  to  follow  the  bidding 
of  the  crowd  !    No  ! !  " 

"The  very  design  of  many  of  the  provisions  of  our 
government  is  to  prevent  the  execution  of  the  will  of 
the  people  token  hastily  formal ;  to  give  opportunity 
for  that  sober  second  thought  which  is  more  nearly 
allied  to  wisdom." 

"The  true  theory  is  this:  The  representative  is  a 
professional  agent  who  is  chosen  to  do  certain  things 


GOVERXMEXTAL  MAXIJtS. 


179 


according  to  his  best  ability,  chosen  on  account  of  his 
ability.  The  people  are  under  obligation  to  have  good 
laws.  Hence  they  are  under  obligation  to  use  the  best 
means  adapted  to  that  end.  Hence  they  select  good 
and  wise  men  to  make  their  laws.  They  select  tlieiu 
that  they  may  have  the  benefit  of  their  superior  wis- 
dom. Of  course  they  must  be  allowed  to  exercise  that 
"wisdom  unfettered  by  instructions.  They  should  be 
restrained  only  by  the  constitution  and  the  laws  made 
in  accordance  with  the  constitution." 

"The  duties  of  a  legislator  should  be  prescribed  by 
the  constitution,  not  by  the  leaders  of  a  party,  or  by  a 
majority  under  the  control  of  such  leaders." 

"The  representative  should  conform  to  the  wishos  of 
his  consistuency  (only)  so  far  as  he  can  do  so  consistently 
with  fidelity  to  their  interests  and  those  of  the  country. 
A  desire  to  please  them  should  not  cause  him  to  neg- 
lect the  duties  he  was  chosen  to  perform." — Pp.  23,  27, 
29-31. 

There  is  an  immense  difference  between  admiring 
liberty  as  a  philosophical  speculation — loving  her  like 
an  imaginary  beauty  by  sonnet  and  madrigal — and 
uniting  with  her  in  real  wedlock  for  better  or  for 
worse. 

"If  parliamentary  practice  is  a  guarantee  of  liberty 
by  excluding  in  a  high  degree  impassioned  legislation 
and  aiding  in  embodying  in  the  law  tlie  collective  mind 
of  the  legislature,  the  principle  of  two  houses,  or  tlie 
bicameral  system,  as  Mr.  Bentham  has  called  it,  is 
another  and  no  less  eflScient  guarantee."  * 
*  Lieber,  Civ.  Lib.,  p.  193. 


180       PiaxciPLES  OF  Church  Government. 


"When  a  bill  is  hastily  brought  in  it  generally 
requires  mature  deliberation  and  many  amendments  in 
its  progress  through  the  two  houses,  which  always  takes 
up  a  great  deal  of  time,  whereas  when  it  is  maturely 
considered  and  fully  concerted  before  being  brought  in 
the  first  draft  of  the  bill  is  generally  so  perfect  that  it 
requires  but  few  amendments.  And  the  rapidity  of  its 
progress  always  benrs  a  proportion  to  the  maturity  of 
its  first  concoction."  * 

The  executive  in  all  governments  should  have  a  neg- 
ative upon  the  legislative  functions  thereof.  Blacik- 
stone  says :  "  It  is  highly  necessary  for  preserving 
the  balance  of  the  constitution  that  the  executive 
power  should  be  a  branch,  though  not  the  whole  of  the 
legislature.  The  total  union  of  them,  as  we  have  seen, 
would  be  productive  of  tyranny;  the  total  disjunction 
of  them  for  the  present  would,  in  the  end,  produce  the 
same  effects  by  causing  that  union  against  vvliich  it 
seems  to  provide.  The  legislative  would  soon  become 
tyrannical  by  making  continual  ecnroachments  and 
gradually  assuming  to  itself  the  rights  of  the  executive 
power." 

The  constitution  of  the  Methodist  Episcojial  Church 
evidently  contemplates  the  integrity  and  perpetuity  of 
the  episcopal  or  executive  power.f  Then  why  not 
grant  to  a  majority  or  to  three  fourths  of  our  bishops 
present  in  the  General  Conference  the  negative  that, 
in  some  form  at  least,  is  deemed  essential  to  preserve 
the  integrity  and  independence  of  every  vigorous  ex- 
ecutive in  every  free  state  in  Christendom  ?  Why 
*  Sir  Cbarlea  Wagner.  f  See  restrictive  rules. 


Governmental  Maxims. 


181 


should  our  bishops  be  compelled  to  listen  to  frequent 
reminders  from  the  floor  of  the  General  Conference 
that  "  they  are  entirely  at  its  mercy  ?  "  "We  commend 
to  the  general  good  sense  of  tlie  Church  the  following 
apothegm  of  "  Junius,"  that  champion  of  liberty:  "The 
submission  of  a  fiee  people  to  the  executive  authority 
of  government  is  no  more  than  a  compliance  with  laws 
which  they  themselves  have  enacted."  * 

What  are  names  by  the  side  of  principles  ?  "  It  is 
evidently  on  the  real  distribution  of  power,"  says 
Macaulay,  "and  not  on  names,  that  the  hnp]nness  of 
nations  must  depend."f  Legislatl\  e,  judicial,  and  ex- 
ecutive power  undistributed  is  papery,  wlietlier  in  the 
hands  of  one  or  many.  The  negative,  as  Ave  have  seen, 
is  necessary  to  the  real  distribution  of  power — abso- 
lutely essential  to  the  extirpation  of  popery.  This 
bugaboo  of  Rome,  no  matter  by  whom  shouted,  is  a 
2)oor  compliment  to  the  general  i/itellic/ence  of  Jfcthodism, 
and  sliould  be  sftinninf/li/  rebuked  by  the  endoioment  of 
the  chief  executive  of  the  Church  with  every  prerogative 
essential  to  the  jnrfection  of  a  free  (/ovcrxinunt. 

In  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  "  tlie  power  of 
the  elders  to  govern  is  permanently  transferred  so  as  to 
be  recalled  only  by  a  change  in  the  constitution,  and 
(that)  it  is  distributed,  as  in  the  federal  government, 
into  three  dejjartments :  the  legislative,  lodged  solely 
in  the  General  Conference  ;  the  executive,  assigned  ex- 
clusively to  the  bishops;  and  the  judicial,  diffused 
through  various  church  courts." 

"I  shall  undertake  to  show,"  says  INIadison,  "that 
*  Letters,  vol.  i,  \>.  25.  f  Essays,  p.  7!>0. 


182 


Principles  of  Church  Government. 


unless  these  departments  be  so  far  connected  and 
blended  as  to  give  to  each  a  constitutional  control  over 
the  others,  the  degree  of  separation  which  the  maxim 
(of  liberty)  requires  as  essential  to  a  free  government 
can  never  in  practii-e  be  duly  maintained." 

We  have  been  burning  the  candle  of  Metliodism  at 
both  ends,  the  people  arrogating  to  themselves  the 
divine  call  and  peculiar  functions  of  the  ministry,  and 
the  ministry  encroaching  in  the  General  Conference 
upon  the  constitutional  prerogatives  of  the  bishops. 

The  best  things  have  been  overthi-own  not  so  much 
by  the  puissance  or  might  of  adversaries  as  through  the 
defect  of  council  in  them  that  should  have  upheld  and 
defended  the  same.* 

Authority  is  sacred  when  experience  affords  parallels 
and  analogies.! 

The  highest  eartlily  work  the  work  of  government.J 

In  his  diary,  July  4,  1844,  Uufus  Chuate  indicates 
what  he  considers  should  be  the  characteristics  of  a 
legislative  speech.  These  are  "  Truth  for  the  staple, 
good  taste  for  the  form,  persuasion  to  act  for  the  end." 

The  difference  between  political  and  constitutional 
responsibility  is,  the  one  is  to  the  people  and  the  other 
to  the  organic  law. 

Error  lurks  under  generalities.  § 

To  censure  works,  not  men,  is  the  just  prerogative  of 
criticism.  || 

AU  human  authority  ceases  at  the  point  where  obedi- 
ence to  man  becomes  disobedience  to  God.^^ 


*  Hooker,  Const.  Lib.,  p.  480.    f  Hookpr. 

^  A.n  unck  nr,  maxim.  ||  Lord  Kames. 


I  Arnold. 
^  Dymond. 


Governmental  Maxims. 


183 


Society  is  the  guardian,  not  tlie  giver  of  its  rights.* 
Every  civil  right  has  a  natural  riglit  for  its  fouu- 
dation.f 

Every  man  by  understanding  his  rights  learns  his 
duties,  for  where  the  rights  of  man  are  equal  every 
man  must  finally  see  the  necessity  of  protecting  the 
rights  of  otliers  as  the  most  effectual  security  of  his 
own. J 

"  Right  by  chance  and  wrong  by  system,"  are  things 
so  frequently  seen  in  the  political  world  that  it  becomes 
proof  of  prudence  neither  to  censure  nor  appland  too 
soon. 

The  fact  that  society  is  so  constituted  as  to  govern 
itself  is  in  proof  that  government  is  of  God.§ 

An  hereditary  transmission  of  any  power  or  office 
can  never  accord  Avith  tlie  laws  of  true  representation. || 

Who  make  the  ministry  a  caste  ?  "  Those  Avho  say 
they  cannot  represent  the  people." 

"  Up  with  the  times "  is  the  righteous  imprint  of 
optionalism;  "As  steady  as  eternity,"  the  changeless 
principles  that  run  through  all  times. 

If  simpletons  deride  Church  government  as  super- 
ficial and  incidental,  wise  men  will  regard  it  as  the  or- 
ganic structure  wliich  gives  law  to  the  performance  of 
every  living  function. 

There  is  a  certain  degree  of  giddiness  bordering  npon 
light-headedness  that  naturally  attends  upon  the  advo- 
cacy of  democracy. 

Love,  joy,  peace,  etc.,  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit,  are  in- 
deed the  life  of  the  Church,  but  life  is  always  subject 

*  Paine.  ^  Ibid.  Xlbid.  %Ilid.  \Ibid. 


184       Principles  of  Cuukcu  Government. 


to  law,  spiritual,  animal,  vegetable,  chemical,  all  subject 
to  organic  structural  laws. 

Church  polity  is  more  than  government.  If  it  be 
held  that  Church  government  has  reference  simply  to 
the  protection  of  rights,  let  me  say  that  Church  polity 
means  something  more — a  militant  movement. 

Precedents  are  "  cases  that  rest  upon  analogous  facts" 
(and  of  course  are  illustrative  of  the  same  principle). 

Precedents  are  important,  not  as  concluding  contro- 
versy, but  as  guides  to  the  judicial  mind. 

Kejit  says,  '•  A  solemn  decision  upon  a  j)oint  of  law 
arising  in  any  given  case  becomes  an  authority  in  like 
cases." 

Dr.  Lieber  says,  "  Liberty  and  steady  progression  re- 
quire the  princii)le  of  the  precedent  in  all  spheres." 

"If- there  is  any  thing  certain  in  human  aiTairs  it  is 
that  acquisitions  are  only  to  be  retained  by  the  contin- 
uation of  the  same  energies  which  gained  them."  * 

Between  the  extremes  of  absolutism  and  anarcliy 
the  ages  have  vacillated.  Absolutism  by  its  excesses 
has  driven  the  world  toward  anarchy,  and  anarchy  by 
its  terrors  back  again  toward  absolutism.  There  is  ice 
at  either  pole — danger  at  either  extreme.  A  despot 
without  control,  a  mob  without  control,  are  equally  the 
foes  of  law,  order,  peace,  and  riglit.  Power  on  the 
throne  harnessed  by  the  enlightened  will  of  the  people 
is  the  acme  of  governmental  wisdom. 

There  can  he  no  effectual  control  vnlhout  some  d'ffer- 
ence  of  origin  or  character  or  interest  or  feeling  or  sen- 
timent. And  the  great  question  i?i  this  country  has  been 
*  Jolni  St\i;irt  Mill. 


Governmental  Maxims. 


185 


ic/iere  to  find  or  hoio  to  create  this  difference  in  govern- 
ments entirely  elective  and  popular* 

This  "  GREAT  QUESTION,"  SO  enibanassiiig  to  tlie  free 
State,  finds  most  admirable  answer  in  the  free  Church, 
not  in  the  inventions  of  man,  but  in  the  ordinances  of 
God.  In  the  standing  orders  of  the  laity  and  ministry, 
each  with  its  divinely  enumerated  powers  and  specific 
functions  and  determinate  interests,  in  the  one  grand 
organism  of  the  Church,  the  body  of  Christ,  we  have 
precisely  the  great  desiderata,  that  exact  balance  of  dif- 
fering powers,  "  interests,  feelings,  and  sentiments," 
which  is  so  essential  to  the  absolute  liberty,  perfect  se- 
curity, and  mutual  prosperity  of  each  in  the  one  great 
brotherhood  of  the  Church. 

Not  that  the  ministry  is  a  "  caste,^''  any  more  than 
the  incumbents  of  any  constitutional  office  are  a  "  caste." 
The  authority  of  the  ministry  in  the  constitutional  of- 
fice of  the  presbytery  or  eldership  to  which  theij  are 
elected  by  the  laity  ("  And  they  elected  them  elders  in 
every  church."  Acts  xiv,  23)  is  the  authority  of  an 
elective  OFFICE,  7iot  of  x  priesthood.  But  just  as  in  a 
republic,  where  every  citizen  is  equal  in  the  eyes  of  the 
law,  particular  men  chosen  by  the  suffrages  of  the 
many  are  charged  with  important  functions  in  the  or- 
ganic structure  of  the  government,  clothed,  indeed,  with 
tlie  authority  of  a  constitutional  office,  so,  while  all  are 
equal  in  the  sight  of  God  as  citizens  of  the  kingdom 
of  heaven,  nevertheless  in  the  visible  organism  of  t^e 
Church,  where  "  all  members  have  not  the  same  office  " 
(Rom.  xii,  4,  5),  the  elective  constitutional  offices  of  the 
*  Webster's  Works,  vol.  iii,  pp.  9,  10. 


186      Pkinciples  of  Church  Government. 


pastorate  (Acts  xx,  28)  and  of  the  diaconate  or  stew- 
ardship (Acts  vi,  2-7)  have  each  an  authority,  in  their 
respective  spheres,  of  the  spiritual  and  temporal  affairs 
of  the  Church  distinctively  marked  in  the  magna  charta 
of  ecclesiastical  rights,  and  as  consistent  with  the  ab- 
solute freedom  of  every  member  of  the  Church  as  an- 
the  elective  offices  of  senator  and  representative  named 
in  the  Constitution  with  the  liberties  of  every  citizen  of 
the  Republic.  The  hoodlum  or  communistic  demand 
that  all  organism  in  Church  or  State  shall  be  ground  to 
its  component  dust — to  its  ultimate  atoms — is  without 
brains,  as  it  is  without  God.  The  hoodlum  in  Church 
or  State  is  himself  an  organism,  and  logically  annihi- 
lates himself  in  his  insane  "  All-on-a-level"  cry,  "  No 
officers  !  "  "  No  authority  ! ! " 

The  sainted  and  scholarly  Nadal  has  very  fitly  said  : 
"  There  are  three  forms  of  society  divinely  established, 
the  State,  the  Church,  and  the  family  ;  in  other  words, 
civil  society,  ecclesiastical  society,  and  domestic  society. 
Civil  society  has  to  do  with  man's  external  and  purely 
mundane  relations  ;  ecclesiastical  society  witli  his  spir- 
j7w(7^  and  c7«y»je  relations;  and  domestic  society  stands 
between  the  other  two,  closely  related  to  each  as  a  prep- 
aration for  each,  but  possessing  a  distinct  character  of 
its  own." 

And  our  dearly  beloved  and  God-honored  Bishop 
Simpson,  in  his  great  speech  in  Pittsburg  (May  24, 
1869),  spoke  as  follows:  "Possibly  it  is  said  that  the 
Church  differs  from  other  institutions  in  that  it  is  di- 
vinely established.  But,  so  far  as  the  fact  of  their 
being,  are  not  civil  governments  also  of  God?  'The 


GOVERXMENTAL  MaXIMS. 


187 


powers  that  be  are  ordained  of  God,'  and  yet  the  people 
have  a  right  as  to  form  and  persons." 

We  are  very  grateful  to  God  for  the  utterance  of 
these  our  leaders,  for  the  recognition  of  this  great 
fundamental  truth  :  "  God  hath  spoken  once,  yea,  twice 
have  I  heard,  that  power  belongeth  unto  God."  "  The 
powers  that  be  are  ordained  of  God." 

You  may  as  well  level  all  the  members  of  the  family 
to  the  plane  of  democracy  as  to  break  down  all  the  spe- 
cial functions  of  the  Church  to  the  same  plane.  The 
family  in  form  is  of  God,  and  the  Church  in  its  essen- 
tial organization  is  of  God,  as  the  ethical  principles  that 
underlie  all  government  are  of  God. 

Certain  of  these  etliical  principles  arc  generally  ad- 
mitted: 1.  That  the  family,  the  Church,  and  the  State 
are  of  divine  institution,  and  are  to  continue  to  the  end 
of  time.  2.  That  there  are  certain  divinely  ordained 
ethical  principles  that  lie  at  the  foundation  of  all  gov- 
ernment, whether  family,  Church,  or  State.  3.  That 
these  ethical  principles  include  the  great  truth  that  all 
just  governments  are  instituted  for  the  good  of  the 
governed,  and  that  these  governments  derive  their  just 
powers  from  the  authority  and  teachings  of  God. 
Alexander  Pope  says :  "  I  hope  all  Churches  and  gov- 
ernments are  so  far  of  God  as  they  are  rightly  under- 
stood and  rightly  administered,  and  when  they  err  or 
may  be  wrong  I  leave  it  to  God  alone  to  mend  or  re- 
form them." 

"Every  attentive  reader  of  the  Xew  Testament  must 
see  that  at  least  the  outlines  of  Church  government  are 
there  laid  down,  and  the  specific  business  of  ofiicers  is 


188       Principles  op  Church  Government. 


often  left  indefinite  for  the  purpose  of  permitting  the 
Churches,  in  tlieir  subsequent  history,  to  .-irrange  their 
government  according  to  their  circumstances." 

Mr.  Wesley  says:*  "Many  learned  men  have  shown 
at  large  that  our  Lord  Iiimself,  and  all  his  apostles, 
"built  the  Christian  Church,  as  nearly  as  possible,  on  the 
])laii  of  the  Jewish." 

"  It  is  by  the  authority  of  the  great  Head  of  the 
Church  that  government  and  discipline  are  established 
in  the  Church." 

"Any  government  whose  laws  are  enacted  by  the 
Lord,  and  whose  officers  are  of  his  selection,  is  a  the- 
ocracy. Such  is  the  Church,  and  such  it  has  been  in 
every  age." 

"The  difference  between  the  government  of  the 
Church  and  the  government  of  the  State  may  be  speci- 
fied as  follows : 

"  1.  In  the  Jewish  Church  the  two  were  united. 
Under  the  Gospel  they  are  separated  by  tlie  authority 
of  our  Lord.  His  kingdom  is  a  spiritual  kingdom.  It 
is  not  of  this  world.  The  government  of  the  State  is 
secular. 

"  2.  The  government  of  the  Church  concerns  itself 
only  with  those  persons  wlio  belong  to  the  Church.  It 
has  no  authority  over  those  who  are  of  the  world 
only. 

"  3.  No  requirement  can  be  made  of  any  nieml)er  of 
the  Church  except  what  is  expressly  taught  in  the 
Bible,   or    what   may   be    inferred    from   it.  Civil 
government  may  m.ake  any  requirement  of  individ- 
*  Sfiiiion  oil  lliu  iiiiuislerial  ulliuo. 


Governmental  Maxims. 


189 


uals  which  may  be  deemed  best  for  the  good  of  the 
State. 

"  4.  Church  government  is  moral  in  its  nature,  and 
punishes  only  by  admonition  or  excommunication  ; 
while  civil  government  punishes  by  pains  and  penalties 
of  secular  power. 

"5.  Church  government  is  advisory,  soothing,  and 
saving  in  its  nature.  The  apostle  says:  '  Brethren,  if 
a  man  be  overtaken  in  a  fault,  ye  which  are  spiritual, 
restore  such  a  one  in  the  spirit  of  meekness; 
considering  thyself,  lest  thou  also  be  tempted.' 
Gal.  vi,  1.  The  civil  power  usually  visits  the  of- 
fender without  any  of  these  palliating  and  preventing 
steps. 

"6.  Church  government  always  forgives  a  penitent 
offender.  Civil  government  makes  no  provision  for  for- 
giveness.   See  2  Cor.  ii,  6,  7." 

"  I  have,"  says  De  Tocqueville, "  seen  reason  to  change 
some  of  my  views  on  social  facts  as  well  as  some  rea- 
sons founded  on  imperfect  observations.  But  the  foun- 
dation of  my  opinions  can  never  undergo  a  change. 
Certain  irrevocable  maxims  and  propositions  must  con- 
stitute the  basis  of  thinking  minds." 

"The  ideas  on  which  the  first  religion  was  based 
must  re-appear  and  stand  prominently  forth  in  the  next 
and  indeed  in  every  dispensation."  * 

"  I  would  rather  fall  with  Christ  than  to  remain 
standing  with  Caesar." 

"  The  Gospel  cometh  not  from  man,  but  was  brought 
by  Jesus  Christ,  and  afterward  put  into  the  hearts  of 
Fnirbairn. 


190      Principles  of  Church  Government, 


the  apostles  and  their  successors,  that  they  miglit  com- 
prehend it  and  speak  or  publish  it."  * 

"  The  kingdom  is  not  governed  by  any  force  or  power, 
but  by  preaching  alone — that  is,  the  Gospel."! 

"Hereby  is  the  kingdom  governed  when  he  so  reign- 
eth  that  all  the  power  thereof  consisteth  in  the  word 
of  God."  I 

"  He  hath  called  nnd  instructed  certain  persons  to 
minister  in  our  churches,  and  hath  bestowed  upon  them 
various  gifts  proper  for  the  discharge  of  their  offices."  § 

Dr.  Elliott  says:  "Protestants  and  Roman  Catholics 
are  agreed  that  a  class  of  men  appointed  in  the  Church 
to  administer  sacrament  and  to  bear  rule  is  of  divine 
appointment,  and  necessary  for  the  interests  of  re- 
ligion." "  That  appointment  to  the  ministry  was  com- 
manded or  instituted  by  Jesus  Christ  is  acknowledged 
on  both  sides."  "  The  apostles  acknowledge  only  two 
ministerial  offices — one  of  the  icord  and  another  of 
tables — therefore  there  are  only  two  orders  of  ministers, 
namely  pastors  and  deacons."  |1 

The  government  of  the  Church  is  a  theocracy  in  a 
far  higher  sense  than  can  be  predicated  of  any  State 
government,  though  it  should  discover  and  apply  every 
good  ethical  principle  of  law  and  order  essential  to  its 
well-being. 

Church  government  as  a  theocraey  involves  not  only 
the  most  distinct  reiteration  and  perfectly  just  applica- 
tion of  all  "ethical  principles  of  law  and  order," 
founded  at  creation  in  the  general  relation  of  things, 

*  Lntlier.  +  Ihid.  %  Ihid.  §  Ibid. 

I  Elliott  on  Romanism,  pp.  448,  449,  476. 


Governmental  Maxims.  191 


but  the  Dioi/ie  presence  and  efficient  sovereign  hearUhip 
of  Christ  in  the  Church,  as  has  never  been  manifested 
in  the  State,  by  the  "divine  prescription"  and  "di- 
vine injunction"  of  specific  agencies  and  positive  laws 
for  the  sovereign  control  of  all  the  interests  of  the 
kingdom  of  God. 

Nothing  can  be  more  unseemly  than  the  position  of 
an  individual  minority,  unless  it  be  the  blunders  of  an 
overwhelming  majority,  the  public  being  judges. 

For  the  Protestant  "crime,"  the  right  of  private 
judgment,  a  minority  may  be  allowed  to  answer  at  the 
bar  of  its  own  conscience.  The  majority  must  respond 
at  the  court  of  history.  The  power  that  abandons  dis- 
cretion in  the  moment  of  fancied  victory  by  shutting 
oflF  debate  may  have  ample  leisure  for  repentance. 

"  Those  who  are  conscious  of  a  good  cause  and  of  the 
support  of  historical  facts  should  never  despair  of 
making  truth  triumph mt,  even  under  circumstances  the 
most  adverse  and  apparently  hopeless."  * 

It  is  the  duty  of  minorities  to  be  "  opinionated"  in 
the  better  sense  of  the  term  ;  to  have  a  definite  and 
positive  opinion  in  the  case  decided.  If  one  had  no 
such  conviction  as  to  the  merits  of  the  case  in  hand  he 
had  no  right  to  attempt  its  decision  by  his  vote — no 
right  to  be  numbered  either  with  the  minority  or  ma- 
jority. Doubt  as  to'the  merits  of  any  ^iven  measure 
must  bar  the  vote  on  that  measure.  A  "doubtful 
vote"  is  an  act  of  unmanly  folly,  a  fearful  crime,  and 
involves  a  responsibility  no  genuine  man  ever  dare 
assume.    To  voluntarily  cast  this  doubtful  vote  is  a 

*  Allison. 


192       Principles  of  Church  Government. 

positive  falsehood;  its  compulsion  by  a  "deliberative 
body  "  an  act  of  tyranny. 

It  is  the  further  duty  of  minorities  to  continue  to  ad- 
vocate their  opinions  until  convinced  that  they  are  erro- 
neous. Majorities  in  a  democratic  government  are  not 
JiiiaUties,  and  were  never  intended  to  decide  a  case  of 
conscience.  It  is  the  glory  of  free  institutions  that  they 
are  based  on  free  opinions,  and  that  an  untrammeled 
conscience  may  assert  its  integrity  though  against  the 
world.  The  rule  of  majorities,  implying  the  preponder- 
ance of  free  ojyinions  on  a  given  subject,  should  never 
stultify  itself  by  an  attempt  to  crush  out  the  expression 
of  free  opinions  in  others  who,  in  a  free  government, 
have  simply  compromised  tlieir  peaceable  submission  to 
majority  rule  with  the  express  understanding  that  they 
are  free  to  manufacture  a  sentiment  that  in  a  free 
government  at  the  end  of  a  given  period  shall  give 
them  the  rule  in  turn. 

The  report  of  the  minority  is  always  in  order. 


The  Constitution  to  be  Guaedeu.  193 


CHAPTER  XII. 

THE  CONSTITUTION  TO  BK  GUARDED. 

(At  the  opening  of  the  General  Conference  of  1876, 
in  the  city  of  Baltimore,  Dr.  W.  II.  Perrine  moved  the 
appointment  of  a  special  committee,  to  consist  of  two 
members  from  the  territory  of  each  Annual  Conference, 
to  take  the  initiative  in  the  work  of  the  thorough  and 
permanent  reorganization  of  the  General  Conference 
into  two  distinct,  separate,  and  yet  concurring  houses, 
to  be  known  respectively  as  the  Clerical  Senate  and 
the  House  of  Lay  Representatives;  the  former  to  have 
the  initiative  in  all  measures  relating  to  moral  disci- 
pline; the  latter  in  measures  relating  to  the  secularities 
of  the  Church.  The  motion  was  tabled,  but  permission 
was  granted  Di'.  Perrine  to  publish  his  speech  in 
support  thereof  in  the  Daily  Advocate.    He  said :) 

In  support  of  this  motion,  Mr.  President,  I  beg  leave 
to  submit  to  the  judgment  of  this  most  honorable  body 
the  following  considerations : 

1.  The  division  of  this  body  into  two  distinct  and 
separate  houses  is  demanded  for  the  more  effectual  pro- 
tection of  our  free  constitution  from  the  encroachments 
of  the  legislative  body. 

That  we  may  the  better  admeasure  the  merit  of  this 
argument,   let  us  traverse   the  ground  legitimately 
covered  by  it  in  four  distinct  yet  consecutive  steps : 
13 


191       Principles  of  Church  Government. 


First,  we  wish  to  show  exactly  that  in  which  the 
freedom  of  a  constitution  consists. 

Secondly,  that  ours  is  a  free  constitution. 

Thirdly,  that  our  free  constitution  is  in  danger  from 
the  overreachings  of  the  legislative  arm;  and 

Fourthly,  that  the  expedient  which  the  legislative 
science  of  the  ages  has  provided  for  the  protection  of 
the  free  constitutions  of  the  world  against  the  aggress- 
ive ambition  of  the  concentrated  legislative  power  is 
the  division  of  that  mass  into  two  distinct,  separate, 
and  restraining  houses. 

It  is  said,  Mr.  President,  that  in  ascertaining  certain 
dimensions  a  yard-stick  has  been  known  to  do  valuable 
service;  that  its  fair  application  will  settle  most  dis- 
putes as  to  lengths  or  breadths,  heights  or  depths  ;  that 
it  is  equally  authorative  whether  applied  to  ribbons, 
to  broadcloth,  to  corduroy,  to  cord  wood,  to  the  altitude 
of  a  man,  or  the  girth  of  the  globe.  We  congratulate 
the  world  of  exte  nsion  on  the  happy  possession  of  a 
standard  so  well  accredited,  so  universally  authoritive. 

Have  we  in  tlie  political  or  ecclesiastical  worlds 
any  thing  analogous  to  this?  A  governmental  "  yard- 
stick" so  well  accredited,  so  universally  authoritative 
that  its  fair  application  shall  be  the  end  of  all  contro- 
versies as  to  the  freedom  or  despotism  of  all  constitu- 
tions, whether  of  Church  or  State  ?  A  "  yard-stick  " 
that  shall  admeasure  with  equal  facility,  impartiality, 
and  exactness  the  merits  of  all  expositions  of  our  con- 
stitution  in  this  regard,  whether  made  by  Church  his- 
torian. General  Conference  orator,  or  official  editor,  no 
matter  how  erudite,  eloquent,  or  "  well  stuck  to  ?  " 


The  Constitution  to  be  Guarded.  195 


We  are  happy  at  least  ia  thinking  we  have  a  "  yard- 
stick" as  old  as  political  science  itself,  and  as  authorita- 
tive as  the  consensus  of  all  the  great  names  in  its  his- 
tory. It  is  the  celebrated  apothegm  of  Montesquieu, 
and  reads  thus:  "  There  can  he  no  liberty  where  the 
legislative,  executive,  and  judicial  powers  are  united  in 
the  same  monarch  or  senate^ 

Thomas  Jefferson  thus  indorses  it:  "The  concen- 
trating of  all  the  legislative,  executive,  and  judiciary 
powers  in  the  same  hands  answers  precisely  the  defi- 
uition  of  despotic  government.  It  will  be  no  allevia- 
tion that  these  powers  will  be  exercised  by  a  plurality 
of  hands  and  not  by  a  single  one.  One  hundred  and 
seventy-three  despots  would  be  as  oppressive  as  one. 
As  little  W'ill  it  avail  that  they  are  chosen  by  ourselves. 
An  elective  despotism  was  not  the  government  we 
fought  for,  but  one  which  should  not  only  be  founded 
on  free  principles,  but  in  which  the  powers  of  govern- 
ment should  be  so  divided  and  balanced  among  several 
bodies  of  magistracy  as  that  no  one  could  transcend 
their  legal  limits  without  being  effectually  checked  and 
restrained  by  the  others."  * 

Chief  Justice  Story  puts  his  great  name  upon  our 
yard-stick  thus: 

"  Whenever  the  executive,  legislative,  and  judiciary 
are  all  vested  in  one  person  or  body  of  men,  the  gov- 
ernment is  in  fact  a  despotism,  by  whatever  name  it 
may  be  called,  whether  a  monarchy,  an  aristocracy,  or 
a  democracy."  f  "  Nothing  is  more  deceptive  or  more 
dangerous,"  says  Webster,  the  great  expounder  of  con- 

*  Jcffersons  "Works,  vol.  viii,  p.  361.  \Const  p.  47. 


196       Pkinciples  of  Church  Government. 


stitutional  liberty,  "  than  the  pretense  of  a  desire  to 
simplify  government.  If  we  will  abolish  the  distinc- 
tion of  branches  and  have  but  one  branch;  if  we  will 
abolish  jury  trials  and  leave  all  to  the  judge;  if  we 
will  then  ordain  that  the  legislator  shall  himself  be  that 
judge;  and  if  we  place  the  executive  power  also  in  the 
same  hands,  we  may  readily  simplify  government — we 
may  bring  it  to  the  simplest  of  all  forms,  a  pure 
despotism."* 

Alexander  Hamilton,  who,  as  the  distinguished  Guizot 
affirms,  "  must  be  classed  among  the  men  who  have  best 
understood  the  vital  principles  and  fundamental  con- 
ditions of  government,"  emphatically  pronounces  the 
apothegm  which  requires  the  distribution  of  the  legis- 
lative, executive,  and  judiciary  functions  "  the  most  ap- 
proved and  well-founded  maxim  of  free  government." 

James  Madison,  one  of  the  clearest  of  all  our  political 
writers,  says:  "The  accumulation  of  all  powers,  legis- 
lative, executive,  and  judiciary,  in  the  same  hands, 
whether  one,  few,  or  many,  and  whether  hereditary, 
self-appointed,  or  elective,  may  justly  be  pronounced  the 
very  definition  of  tyranny;"  and  of  our  "yard-stick" 
he  says:  "No  political  truth  is  certainly  of  greater 
intrinsic  value  or  stamped  with  the  authority  of  more 
enlightened  patrons  of  liberty."  f 

We  will  add  the  weight  of  but  one  other  equally 
great  name.  Stahl,  in  his  justly  celebrated  work,  enti- 
tled the  Fhilosophie.  cles  Reclits,  says:  "Through  Locke 
and  Montesquieu  the  great  truth  has  been  won,  and  it 
constitutes  their  undying  renown,  that  the  participa- 
*  Works,  vol.  iv,  p.  122.  t  Fed.,  p.  272. 


The  Constitution  to  be  Guarded.  197 


tion  of  the  different  elements  in  the  exercise  of  the 
power  of  the  state,  and  that,  too,  in  tlicir  threefold 
function,  is  the  foundation  of  civil  and  political  free- 
dom." And  so,  on  the  other  hand,  that  "  when  one  and 
the  same  power,  whether  a  prince  or  a  popular  assem- 
bly, alone  exercises  all  functions  despotism  is  the  inevi- 
table result."  * 

The  authority  of  our  political  yard-stick  could  not 
be  more  absolutely  unimpeachable,  iwr  could  its  appli- 
cation be  more  easy  and  decisive,  provided  we  but  at- 
tend with  due  caution  to  the  exact  demarkation  of  the 
rule  as  laid  down  in  the  works  of  its  great  expositors. 
We  regret,  however,  that  it  has  sometimes  been  misap- 
plied. Mr.  Bagehot,  in  his  recent  work  on  the  English 
Constitution,  could  not  have  spoken  more  completely 
without  the  record  than  when  he  says,  "  No  doubt,  by 
the  traditional  theory,  as  it  exists  in  all  the  books, 
the  goodness  of  our  constitution  consists  in  the 
entire  separation  of  the  legislative  and  executive  au- 
thorities." f 

For  this  "  traditional  theory  as  it  exists  in  all  the 
books"  is  most  explicit  and  emphatic  in  warning 
against  this  "  entire  separation  of  legislative,  executive, 
and  judiciary  powers,"  as  one  of  the  dangerous  ex- 
tremes to  be  forever  avoided.  "  The  entire  division  of 
powers,"  says  Bluntschli,  "  would  involve  the  dissolu- 
tion of  the  state  and  the  dismemberment  of  the  polit- 
ical body."  I 

Stahl  says  :  "The  complete  isolation  of  the  executive 

*  Vol.  ii,  soc.  2.  p.  203.  f  P.  7G. 

X  Allgemeines  Stalsrechtu,  vol.  i,  p.  450. 


198      Principles  of  Church  Government. 


strips  it  of  every  thing  and  makes  it  the  tool  of  the 
legislative  body."  * 

"The  error  involved  in  the  maxira  of  a  division  of 
powers,"  says  Von  Mohl,  "is  almost  universally 
recognized  in  the  science  of  politics.  Instead  of  the 
common  endeavor  toward  the  common  good  it  would 
result  in  conflict,  in  the  antagonisms  of  divided  pow- 
ers, and  instead  of  stable  freedom  it  would  lead  to 
ananihy."  f 

"The  error  which  would  isolate  them,"  says  Meul- 
ford,  "  is  as  destructive  of  unity  as  the  error  which 
woukl  identify  them  is  destructive  of  freedom."! 

"  Tlie  total  union  of  them,"  says  Blackstone,  "  would 
be  productive  of  tyranny  ;  their  total  disjunction  for 
the  present  would  in  the  end  produce  that  (total)  union 
against  which  it  seems  to  provide  ;  the  legislative  would 
become  tyrannical  by  making  continual  encroachments 
and  gradually  assuming  to  itself  the  rights  of  the  ex- 
ecutive." § 

'1  shall  undertake  to  show,"  says  Madison,  "that 
unless  these  departments  be  so  far  connected  and 
blended  as  to  give  to  each  a  constitutional  control  over 
the  others,  the  degree  of  separation  which  the  apo- 
thegm requires  as  essential  to  a  free  government  can 
never  in  practice  be  duly  maintained."  || 

"To  what  expedient,  then,"  asks  Hamilton,  "shall  we 
finally  resort  for  maintaining  in  practice  the  necessary 
partition  of  power?  The  only  answer  that  can  be  given 
is  that  as  all  exterior  provisions  arc  found  to  be  inade- 

*  Nation,  p.  192.  f  Eiicykhqmlie  der  Staats  Wissencha/ten,  p.  112. 
\  Xaliun,  p.\n.       §  CowMf/i^.,  vol.  i.,  p.  153.  ||  Fed.,  p.  382. 


The  Constitution  to  be  Guarded.  199 


qiiato,  the  defect  must  be  supplied  by  so  contriving 
tlie  exterior  structure  of  the  government  as  that  its 
several  constituent  parts  may,  by  tlieir  mutual  rela- 
tions, be  the  means  of  keeping  each  other  in  their 
proper  places."  * 

Among  the  almost  endlessly  varied  expedients,  hy- 
phens, or  connecting  links,  by  whicii  co-ordinate  depart- 
ments are  inter-related  or  braided  together  in  subordi- 
nation to  constitutional  unity,  may  be  mentioned  the 
following  : 

1.  Constitutional  Checks  ;  such  as  the  conditional 
negative  upon  the  legislative  by  the  executive,  and 
the  decree  of  unconstitutionality  of  legislative  acts  in 
particular  cases  by  the  judiciary. 

2.  A  second  class  of  connecting  links  are  :  Constitu- 
tional Re-enforcements;  such  as  tlie  executive  may 
give  the  constabulary  of  the  courts,  by  calling  out  the 
militia,  and  the  legislative  to  the  executive  in  the  ex- 
ecutive sessions  of  the  senate. 

3.  A  third  class  of  connecting  bonds  between  these 
departments  might  be  labeled,  Constitutional  Depen- 
dencies ;  such  as  is  seen  in  the  dependence  "for  the 
most  part  of  our  national  judiciary  upon  the  authoriz- 
ing acts  of  Congress,  creating  courts  and  conferring 
jurisdiction;"!  election  of  the  judges  of  the 
supreme  court  by  the  senate  upon  the  nomination  by 
the  executive. 

4.  A  fourth  and  last  class  might  be  labeled.  Consti- 
tutional Kesponsibilities  :  amenability  of  all  public 
officers  to  tlie  political  or  civil  tribunals  under  the 

p.  397.  f  Cooley's  Const  Lim.,  p.  191. 


200      Principles  of  Church  Government. 


Constitution  according  to  the  nature  of  their  crimes 
or  misdemeanors;  for  all  authorities  concur  with  Kent 
that  the  "inviolability  of  any  officer  is  incompatible 
witb  the  Republican  theory."  * 

"In  the  United  States,"  says  De  Tocqueville,  "all 
public  offices  are  responsible  to  the  tribunals."  f 

"  Responsibility,"  says  Patrick  Henry,  "  is  the  great 
pillar  of  free  government."  J 

In  summing  up  the  opinions  of  those  who  framed  the 
Federal  Constitution,  Elliott  says:  "An  independence 
of  the  three  great  departments  of  each  other,  as  far  as 
possible,  and  the  responsibility  of  all  to  the  will  of  the 
community,  seemed  to  be  generally  admitted  as  the 
true  basis  of  a  well-constructed  government."  § 

That  is  it,  Mr.  President — the  correlation  of  inter- 
dependent and  perfectly  co-ordinate  departments  or 
offices  of  the  government  with  the  absolute  subordina- 
tion or  responsibility  of  all  incumbent  officers  for  the 
due  performance  of  their  constitutional  functions.  We 
repeat  it,  the  perfect  co-ordination  of  office  and  the 
absolute  subordination  of  the  officer  are  both  equally 
essential  to  the  unity  and  vigor  of  free  government. 
That  and  that  alone  is  the  doctrine  of  the  apothegm, 
and  that  is  the  standard  "  stamped  with  the  authority 
of  the  most  enlightened  patrons  of  liberty."  This 
standard  we  would  now  fling  up  beside  the  stately  pro- 
portions of  our  ecclesiastical  constitution,  and  we  do  it 
with  confidence,  with  pride,  with  gratitude  to  God  for 
the  wisdom  of  the  fathers  in  old  Baltimore  in  1808. 

*  Comment.,  vol.  i,  p.  302.  f  Vol.  i,  p.  l;iO. 

X  Virginia,  Elliott's  Debates,  p.  390.    §  Elliott's  Debates,  vol.  v,  p.  327. 


The  Constitution  to  be  Guarded.  201 


Was  there  ever,  in  the  history  of  political  or  ecclesi- 
astical discussions,  an  absurdity  equal  to  that  advocated 
by  the  South  in  1844,  that  "because  the  episcopacy 
(episcopal  office)  was  a  co-ordinate  branch  oi  Church 
government,  therefore  he  (the  bishop,  episcopal  officer) 
was  not  subordinate  ?  Therefore  he  became  absolute, 
and  beyond  the  reach  of  reproof,  censure,  instruction, 
suspension,  or  deposition."  * 

Yes,  there  was  one  other,  the  exact  counterpart  of 
the  Southern  folly ;  the  equally  amazing  absurdity  ad- 
vocated by  the  orators  and  editors  of  the  Church  North 
from  that  day  to  this,  that  because  the  bishop  or  epis- 
copal officer  was  subordinate,  amenable,  to  the  General 
Conference,  therefore  the  episcopacy  or  episcopal  office 
is  not  a  co-ordinate  branch  of  our  Church  government!  ! 
Could  there  be  any  thing  more  amazing?  And  yet 
these  two  hemispheres  of  absurdity  together  make  a 
perfect  world 'of  nonsense,  the  most  stupendous  pulf-ball 
in  all  political  or  ecclesiastical  history.  And  yet,  sir,  so 
vigorously  has  that  puff-ball  been  kicked  from  North  to 
South  and  from  South  to  North  by  the  official  acrobats 
of  both  sections  that  the  cloud  of  descending  dust  fill- 
ing every  publisher's  sanctum  has  obscured  many  an 
editorial  line  and  thought,  and  well-nigh  put  out  the 
eyes  of  Methodistical  Church  polity. 

"  Will  any  sensible  man,"  asks  Richard  Henry  Lee, 
of  the  convention  that  framed  our  national  Constitu- 
tion— "  will  any  sensible  man  say  that  great  power  with- 
out responsibility  can  be  given  to  rulers  with  safety  to 
liberty  ?  "  \ 

*  Great  Secession,  p.  426.  \  KHiolt's  Di  lates,  vol.  i,  p.  505. 


202 


Principles  of  Church  Government. 


Is  there  a  sensible  member  of  tliis  body  so  insensible 
to  the  excellencies  of  the  structure  of  the  national  gov- 
ernment that  shelters  him  as  to  say  that  perfect  co- 
ordination in  office  is  incompatible  in  any  degree  with 
the  subordination  of  the  officer  in  every  degree  ?  Is 
any  man  so  brave  as  to  affirm  it  ?  Is  not  the  perfect 
subordination  of  the  officer  essential  to  absolute  co- 
ordination in  office  to  any  practical  degree,  and  both  to 
that  real  distinction  of  power  demanded  by  the  repub- 
lican theory  of  free  government?  Dare  any  man 
deny  ? 

That  every  episcopal  officer  is  amenable  under  the 
constitution  to  the  General  Conference  no  one  in  this 
assembly  will  question.  That  he  is  not  only  subject 
at  all  times  to  impeachment  for  immoral  conduct  be- 
fore the  appropriate  judiciary  tribunals  of  the  Church, 
but  answerable  directly  for  maladministration  to  this 
body,  which  may  during  its  session  admonish,  reprove, 
suspend,  or  remove  him  from  office,  no  one  can  ques- 
tion. 

But  as  to  the  co-ordination  of  the  episcopal  office 
with  that  of  the  legislative — we  blush  to  say  it — that 
has  been  questioned.  And  that  question  gives  weight, 
superlative  dignity,  and  overwhelming  importance,  a 
solemn  emphasis,  sir,  to  our  second  question  :  Is  ours  a 
free  government,  a  free  constitution  ? 

If,  on  the  one  hand,  we  shall  find  all  legislative,  ex- 
ecutive, and  judiciary  power  given  by  that  constitution 
into  the  hands  of  our  episcopacy,  in  the  presence  of  our 
standard,  "stamped  with  the  authority  of  the  most  en- 
lightened patrons  of  liberty,"  ours  is  a  despotic  govern- 


The  Coxstitution  to  be  Guarded. 


203 


merit.  That  M'ould  be  popery.  Again,  if,  on  the  other 
hand,  tliat  Constitution  lodges  supreme  legislative,  ju- 
dicial, and  executive  powers  in  the  popular  assembly, 
the  General  Conference,  we  shall  find  our  government 
again  answering  "  the  very  definition  of  tyranny,"  "  in 
fact,  a  despotism." 

If,  however,  we  shall  find  the  executive,  legislative, 
and  judicial  powers  standing  in  the  same  relation  of 
dependence  upon  the  constitution  that  is  above  them, 
each  equ;\lly  sheltered  by  it  fi-om  the  encroachments  of 
every  other,  and  all  standing  in  the  same  relations  of 
authority  in  their  respective  provinces  to  all  below 
them,  then  we  have  not  only  a  perfect  co-ordination 
of  powers  according  to  all  lexicographers,  but,  with 
the  subordination  of  all  officers,  that  exact  distribution 
of  powers  or  ofiices  which  constitutes  our  free  govern- 
ment. 

I  hold  in  my  hand,  sir,  the  constitution  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  enacted  in  the  old  Light  Street 
church  of  this  city  in  1808.  I  turn  first  to  that  au- 
thorizing clause  of  the  constitution  which  confers  legis- 
lative powers  upon  the  General  Conference:  "The 
General  Conference  shall  have  full  powers  to  make 
rules  and  regulations  for  our  Church,  under  the  follow- 
ing limitations  and  restrictions." 

That,  Mr.  President,  is  the  institution  of  the  legisla- 
tive department,  standing,  of  course,  in  the  relation  of 
dependence  upon  the  constitution,  from  which  it  re- 
ceives the  definition,  the  authoritative  limitation,  of  its 
powers.  "What  could  Bishop  Hamlinehave  meant  when 
he  attirmed  of  this  body,  "  It  has  legislative  supremacy  ?  " 


204 


Principles  op  Church  Government. 


We  stand  second  to  no  man  in  our  ailmiration  for  the 
gifts  of  Bishop  Hamline  as  an  orator.  And  it  will  be 
thought  no  presumption  in  me  to  say  with  reference  to 
his  faraons  speech  that,  though  it  were  the  most  match- 
less forensic  effort  ever  made,  though  its  granite-like 
foundations  were  laid  upon  an  under])inning  of  the 
most  diamond-like  rhetoric  that  ever  dazzled  the  eyes 
of  a  deliberative  body,  and  though  the  ease  with  which 
he  upreared  that  amazing  superstructure  of  General 
Conference  power  seemed  perfectly  magician-like, 
Bishop  Hamline  at  least  was  able  to  answer  himself. 
When  pushed  by  Dr.  Smith  upon  some  of  the  points  of 
that  speech,  "  Mr.  Hamline  rose  to  explain,  and  under 
the  head  of  fifthly  said:  'Tiiis  body  is  responsible  to 
the  constitution.'  "  What !  "  Supreme,"  and  yet  re- 
sponsible? He  himself,  sir,  desjnte  the  fictitious 
theory  set  up  in  his  oracular  speech,  was  obliged  to 
acknowledge  that  the  legislative  department  of  the 
Church  stands  in  a  responsible  position,  dependent  on 
the  constitution  for  the  definition  and  guaranteement 
of  its  powers. 

We  glance  next  at  those  portions  of  the  constitution 
which  relate  to  the  executive  department. 

In  the  wise  inter-relations  of  the  departments  of 
power  established  by  the  constitution  we  notice  here, 
first,  that  "one  of  the  general  superintendents  shall 
jjreside  in  the  General  Conference."  Again,  we  find  on 
this  same  page  of  the  Discipline  "  the  whole  machinery 
of  executive  administration,  every  wheel  and  spring," 
sheltered  effectually  by  the  constitution  from  the  legis- 
lative arm:  "They  [the  General  Conference]  shall  not 


The  Constitution  to  be  Guarded. 


205 


change  or  alier  any  part  or  rule  of  our  government  so 
as  to  do  away  episcopacy  or  destroy  the  plan  of  our 
itinerant  general  superintendency." 

Now,  we  must  suppose  that  the  founders  of  the  con- 
stitution used  the  terms  "  episcopacy  "  and  "  plan  of 
itinerant  general  superintendency"  in  a  definite  and 
positive  sense,  a  sense  which  we,  as  interpreters  of  the 
constitution,  are  bound  to  seek  and  ascertain ;  a  sense, 
very  fortunately,  we  need  not  go  very  far  to  find;  for 
these  terms  are  most  specifically  defined  for  us  in  those 
very  "  i)arts  and  rules  of  our  Church  government " 
which  the  founders  of  the  constitution  have  so  wisely 
sheltered  from  the  encroachments  of  the  legislative 
body,  that  it  can  never  "  do  away  episcopacy  or  destroy 
the  plan  of  our  itinerant  general  superintendency." 

Referring  only  incidentally  to  "  that  part  or  rule  of 
our  Church  government "  relating  to  "  the  form  of  or- 
daining a  bishop,"  where  we  have  a  most  impressive 
exhibit  of  the  high  importance  attached  to  these  officers 
by  the  founders  of  the  constitution  "for  the  well  gov- 
erning of  the  Church,"  let  us  turn  at  once  to  that  oiher 
"  part  or  ride  of  our  Church  government,"  in  which 
the  inalienable  powers  of  the  episcopal  office  are  cate- 
gorically enumerated,  and  the  responsibility  of  the  in- 
cumbent officer  most  unequivocally  enjoined.  We  refer 
to  the  section  on  "the  election  and  consecration  of 
bishops,  and  their  duty."  The  powers  of  the  episcopal 
office  are  here  enumerated  under  the  head  of  "  duties  of 
a  bishop,"  and  are  as  follows: 

1.  To  preside  in  our  conferences. 

2.  To  fix  the  appointments  of  the  preachers. 


206 


Principles  of  Church  Government. 


3.  In  the  intervals  of  the  conferences  to  change,  re- 
ceive, and  sus])end  preachers. 

4.  To  travel  through  tlie  connection  at  large. 

5.  To  oversee  the  spiritual  and  temporal  business  of 
our  Church, 

6.  To  ordain  bishops,  elders,  and  deacons. 

All  of  the  above  powers  were  implied  in  the  terras 
"episcopacy  and  plan  of  our  itinerant  general  superin- 
tendcncy,"  as  understood  by  the  founders  of  the  consti- 
tution at  the  time,  and  hence,  according  to  the  most 
authoritative  of  all  the  canons  of  criticism,  binding  upon 
all  expounders  of  the  constitution  for  all  time. 

Now,  sir,  if  we  should  apply  with  anything  like  legal 
acumen  a  well-establislied  legal  principle,  namely,  that 
the  prohibition  of  the  greatest  offense  in  any  certain 
class  of  offenses  must  exclude  all  the  minor  offenses 
of  that  class,  then  the  prohibition  of  the  constitution 
Avhich  forbids  to  "  do  away  episcopacy,"  must  forbid 
the  slightest  encroachment  upon  any  one  of  the  consti- 
tutional prerogatives  of  that  "episcopacy"  as  it  existed 
in  1808,  for  in  just  so  far  as  any  one  of  these  preroga- 
tives is  lessened,  weakened,  or  maimed  in  the  least,  just 
so  far  is  episcopacy  "done  away,"  and  just  so  far  the 
constitution  suffers  violence. 

In  the  fortification  of  our  position  in  favor  of  the 
co-ordination  of  our  episcopacj^  with  the  legislative  de- 
])artment  in  the  government  of  the  Church,  we  shall 
here  cite  but  two  authorities,  either  one  of  whom  will 
pass  current  with  this  body.  Dr.  Charles  Elliott,  our 
official  historian,  employed  and  paid  by  the  General 
Conference  of  1848,  as  "a  competent  ])erson  to  write 


The  Constitution  to  be  Guarded. 


207 


the  histoiy  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Churcli  for  the 
last  four  years,"  shall  speak  for  us : 

"  The  office  of  bishop  and  the  plan  of  gi  neral  superin- 
tendency  are  fundamental  ecclesiastical  principles  of 
Episcopal  Methodism  which  the  General  Conference 
cannot  do  away  or  infringe  upon.  But  this  body,  ac- 
cording to  the  Discipline,  has  complete  authority  to 
approve,  censure,  suspend,  depose,  or  expel  any  bishop 
(that  is,  episcopal  officer),  and  this  power  has  always 
been  recognized  and  exercised,  as  far  as  there  was  room 
for  it,  since  the  organization  of  the  first  delegated  Gen- 
eral Conference,  in  1808."* 

Our  other  authority  that  we  propose  to  quote  we 
think  will  go  uuimpeached,  at  least  wherever  "  the 
sage  and  leader  of  the  old  Baltimore  Conference "  is 
known,  the  venerable  Alfred  Griffith,  whom  Stevens 
so  justly  pronounces  "  profound  and  statesman-like  in 
council,"  "  a  venerable  counselor  of  the  General  Con- 
ference." t 

"  Methodist  Episcopacy  is  the  episcopacy  which  the 
General  Conference  cannot  do  away.  It  is  a  superior 
office  which  the  Conference  of  1784  adopted  as  a  dis- 
tinct authority  and  power,  and  incorporated  it  as  a  pri- 
mary element  of  the  organic  law  for  the  government  of 
the  Church,  and  the  General  Conference  is  bound  to  fill 
the  office,  from  time  to  time,  with  suitable  men,  so  as 
to  maintain  it."  "Thus  the  office  is  distinguished  from 
the  incumbents  who  fill  it."  J    To  Dr.  Hamline  we  sim- 

*  History  of  the  Great  Secession,  p.  429. 

f  Histonj  of  the  Af.  E.  Church,  pp.  215,  231. 

X  History  of  the  Great  Secession,  p.  463. 


208       Pkixciples  of  Church  Government. 


ply  say,  in  1808  the  constitution  did  not  "create,"  but 
simply  ami  effectually  sheltered  the  executive  depart- 
ment of  Cliurch  administration,  which  had  been  in  ex- 
istence since  1784. 

By  turning  to  the  fifth  restrictive  rule  we  shall  find 
the  prerogatives  of  what  we  may  call  our  ect^lesiastical 
judiciary  equally  sheltered  by  the  constitution  from 
the  talons  of  the  General  Conference,  for  it  is  there 
written,  "They  [the  General  Conference]  shall  not  do 
away  the  privileges  of  our  ministers  or  preachers  of 
trial  by  a  committee,  and  of  an  appeal;  neither  shall 
they  do  away  the  privileges  of  our  members  of  trial 
before  the  society,  or  by  a  committee,  and  of  an  ap- 
peal." 

If,  as  some  one  has  said,  "  the  main  result  of  three 
hundred  years  of  Anglo-Saxon  agitation,  revolution, 
and  bloodshed  was  to  put  twelve  honest,  intelligent 
men  in  a  jury  box,"  we  may  commend  the  provident 
wisdom  of  the  fathers  in  thus  throwing  over  these  most 
precious  of  all  ecclesiastical  rites  the  broad  and  shelter- 
ing sBgis  of  the  constitution.  We  cannot  dwell  here — 
as  we  would  like.  Suffice  it  to  say  of  these  three  great 
powers  of  Church  government  that,  as  all  alike  are 
standing  in  the  same  relation  of  dependence  upon  the 
constitution  above  them,  and  all  alike  standing  with 
constitutional  authority  in  the  same  relation  to  all  that 
is  below  them,  we  must  pronounce  them  co-ordinate 
under  the  constitution.  And  braided  together  as  they 
are  by  the  most  admirable  expedients  of  inter-relations 
and  dependencies  in  the  unity  of  the  constitution,  and 
without  the  possibility  of  a  deadlock  of  co-ordinate 


The  Coxstitutiox  to  be  Gtjakdeu.  209 


powers,  as  in  the  United  States  government,  on  the  one 
hand,  or  the  tenure  of  the  executive  administration 
being  dependent  on  the  roll  of  a  popular  wave,  as  in 
Parliament,  on  the  other,  we  have,  we  believe  it,  with  a 
few  exceptions  to  be  noticed  hereafter,  the  most  admi- 
rable system  oi  distributed  power  yet  devised  by  man 
— the  freest,  the  most  stable,  and  yet  the  most  vigorous 
Church  government  on  earth. 

But  this  free  constitution  is  in  danger.  Do  any 
doubt  that  it  has  been  imperiled  ?  Proof  is  too  con- 
clusive. Who  gave  the  most  popular  speech  ever  de- 
livered on  the  floor  of  tliis  legislature  ?  Leonidas  L. 
Ilamline.  What  was  the  burden  of  that  marvelous 
speech  ?  The  supremacy  of  the  General  Conference  ! 
AVe  quote  verbatim  :  "  Its  supremacy  is  univers-il  !  !  Tt 
has  legislative,  judicial,  and  executive  supremacy  ! !  !  " 
What  followed  ?  Was  this  body  shocked  at  the  utter- 
ance of  this  great  libel  on  the  character  of  our  free 
constitution,  at  the  application  of  the  formula  which 
"  answers  to  the  very  definition  of  a  despotic  govern- 
ment," *  "  precisely  the  definition  of  tyranny,"  f  which 
would  make  us  "  in  fact  a  despotism."  \  The  record 
tells  us  "  that  at  its  conclusion  nearly  every  body  was 
ready  to  shout."  Aye,  sir,  that  formula  fell  on  "  eager 
ears."  It  touched  responsive  chords  in  human  nature. 
In  short,  it  was  in  perfect  consonance  with  what  Chief- 
Justice  Story  calls  so  justly  "the  strong  propensity  of 
all  jjublic  bodies  to  accumulate  all  power,  patronage, 
and  influence  in  its  own  hands."  Sir,  with  the  General 
Conference  it  was  a  very  popular  speech.    Who  won- 

*  Jefferson.  f  Madison  \  Story. 

14 


210       Principles  of  Church  Government. 


ders  tliat  tliey  were  "  ready  to  shout" — were  ready  to 
smile  on  the  author  and  utterer  of  so  many  most  agree- 
able sentiments,  so  many  exquisite  and  most  acceptable 
compliments — were  ready  to  do  a  handsome  thing  in 
return  ?  The  orator  gave  the  Conference  all  he  would 
— legislative, judicial,  and  executive  supremacy,"  "uni- 
versal supremacy  !  !"  and  the  General  Conference  gave 
tlie  orator  all  they  could  !  Their  suffrage  made  him  a 
bishop.  And  what  wonder,  sir,  that  while  tlie  exhila- 
rating effect  of  that  intoxicating  draught  of  "  universal 
supremacy  "  was  still  tingling  the  blood,  vibrating  along 
all  the  nerves,  bracing  the  will  with  a  feeling  of  puis- 
sance akin  to  conscious  omnipotence,  this  body,  within 
twenty-four  hours  after  it  had  shaken  out  its  honors  on 
the  head  of  the  very  complimentary  orator,  proceeded 
to  such  a  stretch  of  General  Conference  prerogatives  in 
the  enactment  of  the  so-called  "  plan  of  separation  "  as 
has  covered  not  only  its  enactors,  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  1844,  but  the  entire  Church,  with  confusion, 
humiliation,  and  shame.  Alfred  Griffith  and  a  few 
others  lifted  up  the  voice  of  warning,  but  under  the 
whip  of  the  previous  question  this  well-nigh  omnipotent 
body  drove  on.  It  was  the  work  of  a  few  hours,  but 
it  has  given  us  abundant  leisure  for  repentance,  and  the 
end  is  not  yet.  We  would,  sir,  infinitely  prefer  to  go 
backward  and  throw  the  veil  of  oblivion  over  that  sad- 
dest of  all  the  chapters  of  our  legislative  history,  but 
fidelity  to  the  interests  of  the  Cliurch  yet  imperiled  by 
this  "  universal  supremacy  "  dogma  impels  us  to  speak. 
The  keen-eyed  South  saw  its  advantage.  With  that 
so-called  "  plan  of  separation  "  as  a  deep-laid  keel,  they 


The  Constitution  to  be  Guarded.  211 


proceeded  to  key  and  bolt  in  the  mighty  ribs  of  "  leg- 
islative, judicial,  and  executive  sujjremacy,"  and,  roofed 
with  the  identical  "  universal  supremacy  "  rails  of  "  the 
great  speech,"  and  beaked  with  the  "General  Conference 
supremacy  "  decisions  of  Judge  Nelson  in  the  United 
States  Court,  they  sent  their  Confederate  ram  with  fly- 
ing colors  crashing  through  the  broadsides  of  our  con- 
stitution, severing  not  only  "a  few  slender  restric- 
tions," but  cleaving  the  Church  in  twain,  and  carrying 
away  with  this  General  Conference  supremacy  craft  the 
accumulated  sjDoils  of  our  Book  Concern. 

Why,  sir,  to  change  the  figure  slightly,  General 
Hamline's  universal  supremacy  guns  were  no  sooner  cast 
and  wheeled  into  2>osition  than  the  South,  charmed  with 
the  music,  charged,  seized,  turned,  and  ojDened  upon  us 
"  universal  supi'eraacy"  thunder  with  a  promptness,  pre- 
cision, and  persistency  that  have  not  been  at  all  amus- 
ing. Do  any  doubt  the  accuracy  of  our  statements? 
In  speaking  of  the  Louisville  Convention,  at  which  the 
Southern  Church  was  organized.  Dr.  Elliott  says  : 

"  The  report  on  organization  speaks  as  though  the 
General  Conference  gave  absolute  power  to  the  South- 
ern conferences  to  separate." — P.  480. 

And  again:  "The  convention  itself  says:  'We  do 
nothing  but  what  we  are  expressly  authorized  to  do  by 
the  supreme,  or  rather  the  highest,  legislature  of  the 
Church — the  General  Conference.'  " — P.  769. 

Again,  Dr.  Elliott  says:  "The  ground  taken  in  the 
appeal  of  the  Southern  commissioners  in  the  bill  of  the 
plaintiffs,  and  by  the  Southern  press  in  general,  was  that 
the  General  Conference  had  full  power  to  distribute 


212      Pkixciples  of  Church  Government, 


the  funds  without  the  constitutional  vote  of  the  Annual 
Conferences  !  " — P.  77G. 

On  page  753  he  quotes  from  Judge  Nelson's  decision 
the  following  amazing  statement:  "As  it  respects  the 
action  of  this  body  (the  General  Conference  of  1844)  in 
the  matter  of  division,  no  one  can  pretend  but  that  it 
proceeds  upon  the  assumption  of  unquestioned  power 
to  erect  the  Church  into  separate  ecclesiastical  estab- 
lishments !  Independently  of  tliis  question  of  property 
the  power  of  severance  is  written  on  every  page  of  its 
proceedings !  "  And  again,  from  the  same  Supreme 
Court  decision,  on  page  768:  "As  it  respects  the  power 
of  the  General  Conference  since  the  modifications  of 
1808,  it  is  the  same  as  previously  existed  !  The  powers 
confei-red  on  the  General  Conference  are  broad  and  un- 
limited .  .  .  the  same  as  before  !  I "  Preposterous  as 
these  "  universal  supremacy "  expositions  of  the  con- 
stitutional powers  of  this  body  may  appear,  sir,  when 
inscribed  on  the  banners  of  the  craft  that  cleft  our 
territory  and  Book  Concern  in  twain,  we  cannot  shut 
our  eyes  to  the  danger  with  which  it  still  threatens  us. 
The  superlative  absurdity  of  the  doctrine  was  no  bar 
to  its  adoption  by  the  South,  nor  will  it  be,  if  we  are  to 
judge  the  future  by  the  past,  at  the  North.  Look,  sir, 
at  the  following  voucliers:  Dr.  Crooks,  of  TJie  Method- 
ist, in  his  second  letter  reviewing  Dr.  Porter's  pamphlet 
against  lay  delegation,  in  serious  and  most  vehement 
argument,  said:  "This  view  of  the  powers  of  the  Gen- 
eral Conference,  so  ably  presented  by  Bishop  Hamline, 
and  so  eagerly  accepted  by  the  body  to  which  it  was 
addressed,  has  been  fully  confirmed  by  the  Supreme 


The  Constitution  to  be  Guarded. 


213 


Court  of  the  United  States,  .  .  .  Jmlge  Xelson  holding 
'  that  the  General  Conference  is  supreme  in  the  fullest 
sense  of  the  term,  without  the  concurrence  of  the  sev- 
eral Conferences  !  !  !  "  "  Thus  the  case  stands."  He 
repeats :  "  The  General  Conference  can  do  pretty  much 
as  it  pleases  !  It  made  the  Church;  it  can  unmake  it 
again  !  It  can  hold  the  Church  together ;  it  can  divide 
it  into  two,  three,  or  four  ecclesiastical  bodies.  It  is  a 
supreme  legi>lature,  a  supreme  executive,  a  supreme 
court  !  .  .  .  The  General  Conference  is  not  such  a  body 
as  you  have  asserted.  Its  powers  are  not  limited,  but 
plenary,  and  it  may  distribute  those  powers  according 
to  its  pleasure  !  ! " 

That,  sir,  w  as  one  of  the  arches  of  "  the  bridge  of  fog  " 
over  which  the  whole  phantom  argument  filed  without 
a  single  protest. 

Again,  Dr.  Crooks  has  quoted  much  more  recently 
the  A\  hole  of  Bishop  Hamliiie's  "  universal  supremacy 
speech,"  not  this  time  for  the  purpose  of  proving  that 
the  General  Conference  had  power  to  distribute  the  ag- 
gregate members  and  powers  of  the  Church  into  their 
primary,  original,  or  ultimate  atoms,  but  "  the  absolute 
supremacy  of  the  General  Conference  over  the  episco- 
pacy," and  that  as  to  our  bishops,  "  their  poicer,  their 
usefulness,  themselves  are  entirely  at  the  mercy  of  the 
(delegated)  General  Conference ! !  "  * 

And  in  the  January  number  for  J 876,  after  making 
a  quotation  with  reference  to  the  power  of  the  whole 
body  of  preachers,  Dr.  Crooks  says:  "The  function 
which  most  distinguishes  our  episcopacy  (the  ajipoint- 
*  Methodiit,  Dec.  26,  187-i. 


211      Principles  of  Church  Government. 


ing  power)  is,  therefore,  terminable  in  part  or  wholly  at 
the  pleasui'e  of  the  General  Conference  ! " 

Dr.  Curry  also  quotes  the  "  universal  supremacy " 
speech  of  Bishop  Hamline  with  entire  approbation,  and 
says :  "  The  General  Conference  as  it  meets  quadren- 
nially by  delegates  is  forbidden  to  'do  away  episcopacy,' 
but  it  may  modify  it  at  pleasure,  except  that  it  must 
continue  to  be  '  itinerant  general,'  or,  as  Bishop  Hamline 
puts  it,  the  incumbents  of  the  office  may  be  reduced  to 
a  single  individual,  and  the  duties  assigned  may  be 
reduced  to  that  of  traveling  througli  the  work  without 
the  power  to  do  any  thing  more  !  "  *  A  ])erfcct  defini- 
tion of  an  episcopal  tramp!  Admirable !  You  must  "not 
do  away  "  with  "  the  big  iron  wheel,"  but  tlie  number  of 
cogs  and  spokes  "may  be  reduced  to  a  single  individ- 
ual "  cog  and  spoke,  and  the  duties  assigned  to  this, 
with  its  individual  spoke  and  cog,  may  be  reduced  to 
g-ing  round  and  round  through  the  work  -'■witliout  the 
power  to  do  any  thing  more  !  " 

Tlie  language  of  the  NortJi-wcstern  is,  if  possible,  still 
more  remarkable.  Its  editor  says:  "  The  episco])acy  is 
indeed  a  creature  of  and  subordinate  to  the  General 
Conference,  but,  in  the  intervals  between  the  General 
Conference  sessions,  the  episcopacy  is,  so  far  as  its  ex- 
ecutive duties  derived  from  that  Conference  (!)  are 
concerned,  the  General  Conference  itself  !  !  "  f 

The  "  executive  duties  "  taken  out  of  the  "  episco- 
pacy," what  have  you  left  ?    A  shell !    The  editor  of 
the  Korth-western  proposes  to  fill  that  shell  with  the 
*Ne\v  York  Christian  Advncate,  February  11,  1875. 
\  Avi  th-wtslern,  January,  1875. 


The  Constitution  to  be  Guarded.  215 

General  Conference ! !  We  need  not  multiply  quo- 
tations.   Their  name  is  legion. 

Xow,  Mr.  President,  the  danger  that  must  arise  from 
this  general  and  persistent  denial  of  that  distribution 
of  power  which  is  essential  to  liberty  can  but  be 
evident  to  every  enlightened  lover  of  Constitutional 
Methodism,  To  what  are  we  to  look  for  refuge  ?  To 
our  official  organs  ?  Alas,  sir,  as  we  have  seen,  they 
are  the  advocates  of  this  very  absolutism  of  the  General 
Conference!  And  no  matter  who  shall  be  elected 
hereafter,  they  will  be  under  the  strongest  possible 
temptations  to  flatter  the  king  from  whom  they  receive 
their  patronage  and  their  power,  for  "their  country  is 
nourished  by  the  king's  country."  Shall  we  look  to  the 
episcopacy  for  the  protection  of  the  constitution  ? 
Alas!  they  are  indeed  in  this  body  that  claims  the  con- 
stitutional right  to  divest  them  of  every  vestige  of 
power  but  "a  gallery  of  disabilities,  where,  as  specta- 
tors of  a  tragedy,  they  can  do  little  more  than  admire 
or  reprobate  the  piece,  and  smile  or  frown  upon  the 
actors,"  with  not  even  the  power  of  the  conditional 
veto  with  which  political  science  has  invested  else- 
where nearly  every  free  executive  on  earth!  Will 
the  letter  of  the  constitution  be  a  sufficient  bulwark  for 
the  protection  of  its  spirit  against  the  assaults  of  the 
legislature  ?  Gouverneur  Morris,  whose  gifted  pen 
gave  final  form  and  spnmetry  to  the  Conslituiion  of  the 
United  States,  did  not  think  so.  In  a  letter  to  Timothy 
Pickering  soon  after  the  Constitution  was  finished  he 
exclaims:  "But,  after  all,  what  does  it  signify  that 
men  should  have  a  written  constitution,  containing 


216 


Principles  of  Church  Governmext. 


unequivocal  provisions  and  limitations  ?  The  legisla- 
tive LION  will  not  be  entangled  in  the  meshes  of  a 
logical  net.  The  Legislature  will  always  make  the 
power  which  it  wishes  to  exercise,  unless  it  be  so  organ- 
ized as  to  contain  witJiin  itself  the  sufficient  check. 
Attempts  to  restrain  it  from  outrage  by  other  means 
will  only  render  it  more  outrageous."  * 

Hamilton,  who,  it  is  said,  "most  powerfully  con- 
tributed to  introduce  into  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  every  element  of  order,  of  force,  and 
duration  in  it,"  says:  "  In  a  republican  government  the 
legislative  authority  necessarily  predominates.  The 
remedy  for  this  inconvenience  is  to  divide  the  legisla- 
ture into  different  branches  nnd  to  render  them,  by 
modes  of  election  and  different  principles  of  action,  as 
little  connected  with  eat-h  other  as  the  nature  of  their 
common  function  and  their  common  dependence  on 
society  will  admit."! 

De  Lolmc,  one  of  the  very  first  constitutional  writers 
of  moilcrn  times,  says:  "In  order  to  insure  stability  to 
the  constitution  of  the  state,  it  is  indispensably  neces- 
sary to  iL'strain  tlie  legislative  authority;  and  the  legis- 
lature, to  be  restrained,  must  be  absolutely  divided, 
for  whatever  laws  it  may  make  to  restrain  itself,  they 
c;ui  never  be  relatively  to  it  any  thing  more  than  sim- 
ply resolutions.  As  those  bars  wliich  it  might  erect  to 
stop  its  own  motions  must  then  be  within  it  and  rest 
only  upon  it,  they  can  be  no  bars.  But  each  of  the 
parts  into  which  the  legislature  is  divided  can  serve  as 
bars  to  the  motions  of  the  others.  ...  As  a  kind  of  point 
*  Elliott's  Debates.,    vol.  i,  p.  509.  f  Fed.,  p.  390. 


The  CoNSTiTUTiox  to  be  Guarded.  217 


of  honor  will  naturally  take  place  between  those  differ- 
ent parts  of  the  legislature,  they  will  therefore  be  left 
to  offer  to  each  other  only  such  propositions  as  will  at 
least  be  plausible,  and  all  very  jtrejudirial  changes  will 
thus  be  prevented,  as  it  were,  before  their  birth."* 

Chief-Justice  Story,  among  the  enumerated  advan- 
tages of  the  division  of  the  legislature  into  two  dis- 
tinct and  independent  branches,  states  that  "  it  inter- 
poses a  barrier  against  the  strong  propensity  of  all 
public  bodies  to  accumulate  all  power,  patronage,  and 
influence  in  their  own  hands."  f 

In  the  great  work  of  Curtis,  entitled  Tlie  Ilistori/  (\f 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  quoted  with  defer- 
ence as  an  authority  at  home  and  abroad,  we  liud  the 
following: 

"  The  needful  harmony  and  completeness  of  the 
scheme,  according  to  the  genius  of  Anglo-American 
liberty,  required  the  division  of  the  Legislature.  Doubt- 
less a  single  council  or  chamber  can  promulgate  de- 
crees and  enact  laws;  but  it  had  never  been  the  habit  of 
the  people  of  America,  as  it  had  never  been  the  habit  of 
their  ancestor  s  for  at  least  a  period  of  somewhat  mure 
than  five  centuries,  to  regard  a.  single  chamber  as  favor- 
able to  liberty  or  to  loise  legislation. 

"  The  separation  into  two  chambers  of  Lords,  sjjirit- 
ual  and  temporal,  and  the  Commons,  does  not  seem  to 
have  oiiginated  in  a  diflference  of  ])ersonal  rank  so 
much  as  in  their  position  as  separate  estates  of  the 
recdm.  All  the  orders  might  have  voted  promiscuously 
in  one  house,  and  just  as  effectually  signified  the  assent 

*  Const.  Eng.,  p.  231.  f  Story  on  Const.,  p.  50. 


218      Principles  of  Church  Government. 


or  dissent  of  Parliament  to  measures  proposed.  But 
tlie  practice  of  making  the  assent  of  Parliament  to 
consist  in  the  concurrent  and  separate  action  of  the  two 
estates,  though  difficult  to  be  traced  to  its  origin  in  any- 
distinct  purpose  or  cause,  became  confirmed  by  the 
growing  importance  of  the  Commons,  by  their  jealousy 
and  vigilance,  and  by  controlling  positions  which  tliey 
finally  assumed.  As  Parliament  gradually  proceeded 
to  its  present  constitution,  and  the  separate  rights  and 
privileges  of  the  two  Houses  became  established,  it 
was  found  that  the  practice  of  discussing  a  measure 
in  ttoo  assemblies  composed  of  different  persons  hold- 
ing their  seats  hg  different  tenure  and  representing  dif- 
ferent orders  of  the  state,  was  in  the  highest  degree 
conducive  to  the  security  of  the  subject  and  to  sound 
legislation. 

"  tSo  fully  was  the  conviction  of  the  prai-tical  con- 
venience ami  utilitg  of  the  two  chambers  established  in 
the  Anglican  mind  that  when  representative  govern- 
ment came  to  be  established  in  the  British  North 
American  colonies,  although  the  original  reason  for  the 
division  of  (legislative)  power  ceased  to  be  applicable, 
it  was  retained  for  its  incidental  advantages.  In  none 
of  the  colonies  was  there  any  difference  of  social  con- 
dition, or  political  privilege  or  power,  recognized  in  the 
system  of  representation;  and  as  there  were  therefore 
no  separate  estates  or  orders  among  the  people  requir- 
ing to  be  protected  against  each  other's  encro.ichments, 
or  holding  different  relations  to  the  crown,  we  camiot 
attribute  the  adherence  to  the  sgsteni  of  two  chambers 
on  the  part  of  those  who  solicited   and  received  the 


The  Coxstitution  to  be  Guarded.  219 


privilege  of  establishing  these  colonial  governments,  to 
any  thing  hut  its  practical  advaxtagks  for  purposes 
of  legislation. 

"Still  less  after  the  Revolution,  and  when  there  no 
longer  existed  any  such  motive  as  might  have  influ- 
enced the  crown  in  modeling  the  colonial  after  the  im- 
perial to  a  certain  extent,  was  it  probable  that  the 
people  of  these  States  should  have  perpetuated  in  their 
constitutions  the  principle  of  a  division  of  the  Legisla- 
ture into  two  chambers  for  any  other  purpose  than  to 
secure  tlie  practical  benefits  lohich  they  and  Uieir  ances- 
tors had  always  found  to  flow  from  it.  .  . 

"As  a  new  government  was  now  about  to  be  formed, 
whose  theoretical  and  actual  powers  were  to  be  so  es- 
sentially different  (from  those  of  the  old  Confederation), 
an  opportunity  was  afforded  for  the  ancient  and  favorite 
construction  of  the  legislative  de|iartment.  .  .  . 

"The  happy  expedient  of  selecting  the  States  as  the 
basis  of  representation  in  the  senate  has  furnished  a 
really  different  foundation  for  the  two  branches,  as  dis- 
tinct as  the  separate  representation  of  the  different 
orders  in  the  British  Constitution.  It  has  thus  secured 
the  incidental  advantages  of  two  chambers  without 
resorting  to  those  fluctuating  and  arbitrary  distinctions 
among  the  people  which  can  never  afford,  in  such  a 
country  as  ours,  even  an  ostensible  difference  for  the 
origin  of  legislative  bodies."  * 

"  The  objects  of  a  senate  were  in  the  first  place  that 
there  might  be  a  second  chamber  with  concurrent  au- 
thority in  the  enactment  of  laws.    Secondly,  that  a 

*  Vol.  ii,  pp.  130-34. 


220       Pkinciples  of  Church  Government. 


greater  degree  of  wisdom  and  slabiUti/  might  reside  in 
its  deliberations  than  would  be  likely  to  be  found  in 
the  other  branch  of  the  legislative  department;  thirdly, 
that  there  might  he  some  diversity  of  interests  bcticeen 
the  two  bodies.  These  objects  were  to  be  attained  only 
by  providing  for  the  senate  a  distinct  and  separate 
basis  of  its  own."  * 

"  The  people  of  these  colonies  in  general,  therefore, 
saw  that  nothing  was  so  important  in  constructing  a 
government  with  popular  institutions  as  to  balance  the 
legislative,  executive,  and  judicial  departments,  each 
against  the  others,  so  as  to  leave  to  neither  of  them 
uncontrolled  and  irresponsible  power.  In  general,  too, 
they  understood  and  had  always  been  accustomed  to 
the  applications  of  that  other  fundamental  principle 
essential  to  well  regulated  liberty — the  division  of  the 
legislative  power  between  two  separate  chambers  having 
distinct  origin  and  of  distinct  construction^  f 

Webster  says  that  "  if  all  legislative  power  rested  in 
one  house  it  is  very  problematical  whether  any  proper 
independence  could  be  given  to  either  the  executive  or 
judiciary.  Experience  does  not  speak  encouragingly 
upon  this  point.  If  we  look  through  the  several  con- 
stitutions of  the  States  we  shall  perceive  generally  that 
where  the  departments  are  most  distinct  and  indepen- 
dent there  the  legislature  is  composed  of  two  houses 
with  equal  authority  and  mutual  checks.  If  the  legis- 
lative power  be  in  one  popular  body  all  other  power 
will  sooner  or  later  be  there  also." 

The  testimony  of  all  legislative  science  on  this  point 
»  Vol.  ii,  p.  138.  f  Vol.  i.  p.  119. 


The  Constitution  to  be  Guakded.  221 


is  sliarp,  clear,  and  incisive.  There  is  but  one  effectual 
shield  for  the  defense  of  constitutionally  distributed 
power  from  the  aggressions  of  legislative  ambition,  and 
that  is  the  division  of  the  legislative  body  into  two  dis- 
tinct and  separate  houses. 

Will  any  man  rise  here  in  his  place  and  deny  that  in 
this  body  there  exists  a  "strong  propensity  to  accumu- 
late all  power,  patronage,  and  influence?"  "We  will 
congratulate  the  Church  on  such  a  denial,  on  the  dawn 
of  sanity,  and  wull  take  it  as  an  encouragement  to  pro- 
ceed in  the  work  of  so  enfilading  our  constitution  by 
the  double  ramparts  of  a  divided  legislature  that  en- 
croachments upon  our  liberties  by  this  body  would  be 
an  impossibility. 

Will  any  man  rise  here  and  deny  that  ours  is  a  free 
constitution,  and  affirm,  with  Bishop  Ilainline,  that  this 
body  has  "  universal  supremacy ; "  that  all  the  powers 
of  the  law-maker,  the  judge,  and  the  executioner  are 
lodged  in  the  same  hands,  thus  answering  to -the  very 
definition  of  despotic  government,  and,  if  true,  making 
our  government  in  fact  a  despotism  ?  If  so,  we  shall 
not  only  sympathize  with  him  in  his  affliction — for  any 
man  who  carries  such  a  conviction  as  that  in  this  free 
land  must  be  a  very  sad  man  and  in  need  of  sympathy  ; 
but  we  would  sincerely  thank  him  for  thus  most  effect- 
ually clinching  on  the  other  side  the  two-house  argument 
which  we  have  substantially  driven  in  the  interests  of 
a  free  constitution. 

Hear  John  Adams.  After  a  most  searching  analysis 
"  of  all  mixed  and  free  governments  which  have  ever 
existed,  from  the  earliest  records  of  time,"  he  deduces 


222        Principles  of  Church  Government. 

the  following  "  great  practical  truth,"  which  we  com- 
mend to  all  disciples  of  H.imlinean  despotism  :  "Single 
assemblies  without  check  or  balance  in  a  government 
•with  all  authority  collected  into  one  center  have  been 
visionary,  violent,  corrupt,  and  tyrannical  dominations 
of  majorities  over  minorities."  * 

*  Adams,  Defense  of  tlie  American  Constitution,  vol.  iii,  p.  402. 


Injudicious  Legislation  to  be  Avoided.  223 


CHAPTER  Xm. 

INJUDICIOUS  LKGISLATIOX  TO  BE  AVOIDED. 

DR.  PKRRISE'S  second  .\RGLME.\T  is  TUE  BALTIIIOEE  SPEECH. 

Again,  sir,  the  division  of  tliis  General  Conference 
body  into  two  distinct  and  separate  houses  is  demanded 
for  the  more  efficient  protection  of  the  interests  of  the 
Church  against  the  perils  of  hasty,  indiscreet,  and  op- 
pressive legislation. 

In  his  Constitutional  Jlistory  of  England,  May  says: 
"Timely  delays  in  legislation,  a  cautious  review  of 
public  measures,  resistance  to  the  tyranny  of  majorities 
and  the  violence  of  a  faction — the  means  of  judicious 
compromise  are  all  wanting  in  a  single  chamber."  * 

"  One  great  object,"  says  Chancellor  Kent,  "  of  the 
separation  of  the  legislature  into  two  houses,!  acting 
separately  and  with  co-ordinate  powers,  is  to  destroy 

*  Tol.  ii,  p.  536. 

t  Jefferson  one  day  visiieii  Washington,  and  full  as  Jefferson  was 
of  French  views  and  ide;is  of  politics  and  every  thing  else,  he  zealous- 
ly attacked  the  system  of  two  houses  of  Congress.  General  Wash- 
ington replied  that  Jefferson  was  much  better  informed  than  himself 
upon  such  topics,  and  that  he  liim.=elf  would  adhere  to  the  experience 
of  English  and  American  history.  ''Yon  yourself,"  said  liie  general, 
"  have  proved  tlje  excellence  of  two  houses  this  very  moment." 

"  I  ?  "  said  Jefferson  ;  "  liow  is  that  ?  " 

"You  have,"  replied  the  heroic  sage,  "poured  your  hot  tea  from 
the  cup  into  the  saucer  to  cool  it.  It  is  the  same  thing  we  desire  of 
the  two  houses." 


224 


Principles  op  Church  Government. 


tlie  effects  of  sudden  and  strong  excitements,  and  of 
precipitate  measures  springing  from  passion,  caprice, 
prejudice,  personal  influence,  and  party  intrigue,  which 
have  been  found  by  sad  experience  to  exercise  a  potent 
and  dangerous  sway  in  single  assemblies.  A  hasty  de- 
cision is  not  so  likely  to  proceed  to  the  solemnities  of  a 
law  when  it  is  to  be  arrested  in  its  course,  and  made  to 
undergo  the  deliberative,  and  probably  jealous,  critical 
revision  of  another  and  rival  body  of  men  sitting  in 
another  place,  and  under  better  advantages  to  avoid 
the  prepossessions  and  correct  the  errors  of  the  other 
branch."  * 

But  will  any  one  say  that  these  prudential  regula- 
tions, however  self-evident,  wise,  and  invaluable  w^hen 
applied  to  the  legislation  of  the  State,  lose  much  of 
their  significance  when  applied  to  the  legislation  of  the 
Church,  which  is  intended  for  altogether  another  pur- 
pose and  to  be  enforced  by  altogether  different  pen- 
alties ? 

We  are  quite  willing  to  grant  that  these  objects  do 
respectively  differ  as  the  jji-otection  and  promotion  of 
the  spiritual  and  eternal  interests  of  the  Church  differ 
from  the  protection  and  promotion  of  the  material  and 
temporal  interests  of  the  State  ;  and  that  the  penalties 
attached  differ  as  the  pains  of  ecclesiastical  censure  and 
exclusion  from  ecclesiastical  privileges  differ  from  the 
terrors  of  the  sword.  Nevertheless,  the  legislative 
function  is  one  in  Church  and  State — the  enactment  of 
rules  and  regulations  for  the  protection  and  inomotion 
of  values.  And  shall  we  not  need  substantially  the  same 
*  Comment,  vol.  i,  p  224. 


IxjuDicious  Legislation  to  be  Avoided.  225 


legislative  expedients,  the  same  prudential  safeguards, 
which  political  science  affords? 

Will  any  one  affirm  that  the  spiritual  and  eternal  in- 
terests to  be  protected  and  promoted  by  the  legislation 
of  the  Church  are  less  in  value  than  are  the  material 
and  temporal  interests  to  be  secured  by  the  legislation 
of  the  State,  or  that  they  are  more  easily  and  graciously 
secured  ? 

Will  mere  goodness  reveal  more  light  ujion  legisla- 
tive principles  than  mere  patriotism?  Is  God  more 
likely  to  intervene  miraculously  in  aid  of  the  legis- 
lators of  a  Church  which  publishes  to  the  world  that 
*'  no  part  of  its  Church  government  is  inspired,"  than 
in  aid  of  the  legislators  of  the  State  who  proclaim  their 
convictions  that  "the  powers  that  be  are  oivlained  of 
God,"  and  stamp  upon  the  new  coinage  of  the  restored 
republic,  "  In  God  we  trust  ?" 

Are  ecclesiastical  legislators  less  tenacious  of  their 
opinions,  or  less  warm  in  their  advocacy  of  measures 
which  they  believe  will  touch  on  eternal  interests,  than 
the  statesmen  whose  solicitude  relates  only  to  the  in- 
terests of  time? 

Will  any  say  that  the  great  religious  controversies  of 
the  world,  touching  Church  doctrine  and  government, 
have  been  less  fierce  and  stormy  than  those  that  have 
related  merely  to  political  themes  ? 

Are  ministerial  councils  usually  less  in  haste  to  get 

through  with  the  business  of  the  session  and  to  be  away 

than  are  the  legislators  of  the  State,  who  are  paid  in 

proportion  to  the  length  of  the  session  ? 

Would  it  be  difficult  to  determine  in  which  the 
15 


226      Principles  op  Church  Government. 


temptation  to  hasty,  indiscreet  legislation  would  be  the 
more  urgent? 

Can  it  be  said  that  deliberation,  precaution,  discre- 
tion are  virtues  of  less  weight  in  the  legislation  of  the 
Church  than  of  the  State  ?  that  impetuosity,  precip- 
itancy, passion,  prejudice,  are  less  obnoxious  in  relig- 
ious than  in  political  assemblies  ?  * 

Can  it  be  said  that  the  consequences  of  ill-timed  and 
obnoxious  legislation  in  the  councils  of  the  Churcli  are 
less  fearful  and  far-reacliing  than  in  those  of  the  State  ? 

Is  it  to  be  presumed  that  the  first  cords  that  snapped 
in  the  dissolution  of  the  union  between  the  North  and 
the  South,  amid  the  excitements  of  this  body  in  1844, 
will  be  the  first  that  shall  be  fully  restored  ? 

Are  the  humiliations  and  griefs  of  clerical  legislators, 
whose  blunders  are  not  only  written  down  in  the  cold, 
clear  page  of  history,  but  memorialized  in  the  continued 
disasters  of  the  Church,  less  profound  and  pungent 
than  those  which  politicians  feel  over  similar  blunders 
and  similar  disasters  ? 

Do  you  suppose  it  would  have  cost  a  political  his- 
torian more  to  write  up  the  faithful  record  of  his 
own  well-meant  but  ill-timed  measures  than  it  cost 
the  honor-bright,  intrepid  spirit  of  Dr.  Charles  Elliott, 
whose  generous  and  chivalric  nature  had  prompted  him 

*  "Judge  Hubbard  characterized  the  General  Conference  (of  1872) 
as  an  undeliberate  body  without  a  leader  and  witlioiit  influence,  doing 
business  in  a  hap-hazard  manner.  Dr.  Charles  Bennett  corroboiated 
Judge  Hubbard's  cliarauterizaiion  of  the  General  Conference.  It  was 
almost  impossible  to  get  the  floor,  and  aii»id  the  bustle  and  confusion 
he  many  times  wished  himself  at  home." — Nurih-western,  August  'i8, 
1872. 


IxJUDicious  Legislatiox  to  be  Avoided.  227 

to  move  as  a  peace  measure  the  adoption  of  the  so- 
called  "plan  of  separation,"  when  called  upon  by  this 
body  to  write  up  the  record  of  its  disastrous  workings  ? 

We  affirm  it,  the  man  who  could,  in  his  close  self- 
control,  write  out  as  he  wrote  the  sentence  of  his  own 
condemnation  for  the  eye  of  all  subsequent  time,  is 
"  greater  than  he  that  taketh  a  city." 

We  copy  a  fragment  of  that  heroic,  self-crucifying 
sentence:  "In  regard  to  the  pl.m  of  separation,  the  fol- 
lowing may  be  put  down  as  the  common  opinion  into 
which  the  facts  in  the  case  have  brought  the  mind  of 
the  Church;  namely,  the  plan  either  ah  initio  or  dejure, 
or  in  its  relations,  connections,  or  consequences,  is  un- 
cojistitutional !  "  * 

Need  I  say  that  the  man  who  could  write  such  a  sen- 
tence is  worthy  of  a  monument  that  should  rake  the 
clouds,  and,  towering  in  the  gaze  of  the  ages  to  come, 
should  stand  not  only  as  the  fitting  memorial  of  that 
candor  and  devotion  to  the  interests  of  truth  and  the 
Church  which  triumphs  over  the  humiliation  of  self,  but 
as  a  shaft  of  admonition  and  terror  to  all  hasty  and 
impetuous  legislators  in  the  Church;  for  let  it  never  be 
forgotten  that  every  resolution  of  that  most  unconsti- 
tutional, disastrous,  and  humiliating  "  plan  of  separa- 
tion" was  passed  under  the  whip  of  the  "previous 
question!  !  ! " 

And  allow  me,  brethren,  after  first  invoking  with 
confidence  on  the  part  of  many  of  the  noblest  within 
the  reach  of  my  voice  the  same  candor,  the  same  in- 
trepid devotion  to  the  interests  of  the  Church,  the  same 

*  History  of  Great  Secession,  p.  542. 


228      Principles  of  Oiiuncii  Government. 

triumph  in  that  devotion  over  the  humiliations  of  self 
that  has  forever  glorified  the  name  of  Charles  Elliott 
— permit  me,  I  beg  of  you,  to  refer  to  another  illustra- 
tion of  the  dangers  and  follies  of  hasty  and  impetuous 
legislation  in  the  Church.  We  allude  to  the  passage  of 
the  Plan  of  Lay  Delegation — a  plan  (tell  it  not  in  Gath!) 
drafted  over  night  and  next  morning  rushed  through 
this  body,  without  printing  (//)  and  almost  without  dis- 
cussion; and  yet,  forsooth,  "  recommended  to  the  godly 
consideration  of  the  Church  !  !  ! "  Was  ever  "  godly 
consideration  "  so  illustrated  and  enforced  ? 

Mr.  President,  there  are  "  mysteries  of  godliness " 
which  I  most  devoutly  believe — that  is,  I  believe  the 
fact  revealed,  notwithstanding  the  mystery  of  the  cause 
concealed.  But,  sir,  such  was  the  bewilderment  pro- 
duced by  the  legislative  velocity  with  which  this  body 
flew  over  the  ground  of  the  plan  at  Chicago  that  nei- 
ther they  nor  any  one  in  the  whole  field  of  the  Church 
besides  seem  to  have  been  able  to  catch  even  a  glimpse 
of  any  thing  like  a  fact  or  event  of  "godly  considera- 
tion "  in  the  whole  history  of  the  plan,  thus  far,  that 
could  challenge  for  an  instant  the  faith  of  the  world. 

Will  any  one  affirm  that  the  plan  was  submitted  to 
the  "godly  consideration"  of  the  laity,  and  that  they 
could  have  expressed  their  godly  judgment  of  its  mer- 
its at  the  polls  ?  Every  editor  in  the  Church  exclaimed, 
"  No,  no  !  The  vote  of  the  laity  is  not  for  or  against 
the  plmi,  but  for  or  against  the  principle,  of  lay  repre- 
sentation. The  plan  can  be  modified  by  the  next  Gen- 
eral Conference  ad  libitum.''''  And  they  were  right. 
The  vote  of  the  laity  was  on  the  principle,  not  on  the 


Injudicious  Legislation  to  be  Avoided,  220 


plan  ;  and  that  caution,  passed  along  the  recoiling  line 
again  and  again,  alone  saved  the  cause  among  the  laity, 
for  objections  against  the  plan  sprang  up  like  a  dark- 
ening host  of  armed  men,  threatening  its  very  existence 
if  once  brought  within  the  reach  of  their  bullet-like 
ballots.  The  fact  of  "godly  consideration"  was  not 
yet. 

Does  any  one  suppose  that  the  plan  was  submitted 
to  the  "  godly  consideration  "  of  the  members  of  the 
Annual  Conferences,  and  that  it  was  ever  placed  within 
reach  of  their  ballot  ?  If  so  they  are  quite  in  error, 
for  Bishop  Simpson,  who  had  evidently  made  a  careful 
analysis  of  the  mysteries  of  the  plan,  stated  at  many, 
if  not  all,  the  Annual  Conferences  presided  over  by 
him,  with  the  utmost  perspicuity  and  justness,  that 
"the  vote  of  the  Conference  is  not  to  be  on  the  plan, 
but  simply  and  alone  on  the  alteration  of  the  restrictive 
rule."  * 

This  just  and  timely  caution  saved  the  cause  among 
the  ministiy,  for  bitter  and  indignant  hostility  to  the 
plan  was  turned  aside,  and  its  enemies  persuaded  to 
vote  "aye"  on  the  principle  by  the  emjjhatic  declara- 
tion that  "  the  plan  would  be  in  the  hands  of  the  next 
General  Conference  to  alter  and  amend  at  pleasure; 
that  these  modifications  could  include  every  thing  ex- 
cept the  number  of  lay  delegates."  f 

The  Annual  Conferences  could  not  touch  the  plan, 
even  in  the  remotest  degree,  by  their  votes.  The 
"godly  consideration"  recommended  was  yet  in  the 
future  !    Did  we  look  forward  to  the  opening  of  the 

*  Zion's  Herald,  April  21,  18T0.  f  Ibid.,  May  5,  1870. 


230      Principles  op  Church  Government. 


General  Conference  at  Brooklyn  for  some  modifications 
of  the  i)lan  before  the  laymen  were  admitted  ?  Not 
with  much  hope;  for,  amazing  as  it  may  seem,  no  sooner 
had  the  desired  majority  among  people  and  preachers 
been  achieved  than  an  early  "manifesto"  of  some  of 
the  committee  that  drafted  that  over-night  plan,  which 
had  prudently  been  allowed  to  slumber,  was  sent  out 
among  all  the  thousands  of  our  Israel,  proclaiming  to 
astonished  multitudes  that  "  a  provisional  plan  of  lay 
delegation  is  so  determined  that  it  and  no  other  can  be- 
come the  law  of  the  Church  !  "  And  so  a  pressure  of 
"  honor  bound  to  the  laity  "  was  so  successfully  worked 
up  that  the  plan  was  shot  through  the  opening  session 
before  the  powder  of  the  previous  question  with  most 
astonishing  velocity;  and,  what  is  most  surprising  of 
all,  the  laymen  themselves,  none  of  whom  could  have 
fully  approved  the  plan,  after  ramming  it  down  the 
grooves  of  tlieir  convention,  came  in,  and  by  resolutions 
shot  it  olf  and  on,  without  debate,  for  at  least  four 
years  more  !  We  stand  here  to-day,  at  the  expiration 
of  the  aforesaid  four  years,  to  announce  that  the 
"godly  consideration"  so  singularly  recommended, 
after  eight  full  calendar  years  is  still  to  come.  With 
the  millennium,  it  is  still  in  the  future. 

Will  any  one  claim  that  these  marvelous  opportuni- 
ties for  playing  fast  and  loose  according  to  the  perils 
or  urgencies  of  the  times,  so  far  from  being  blunders, 
were  the  convincing  evidence  of  the  prophet-like  sa- 
gacity of  the  drafters  of  that  phin  ?  We  shudder,  sir, 
at  the  dishonor  such  an  imputation  would  cast  upon  the 
fair  fame  of  the  noblest  and  ablest  and  truest  men  we 


Injudicious  Legislation  to  be  Avoided.  231 

have  among  us;  men  who  are  entirely  incapable  of  such 
duplicity,  such  double-dealing.  The  fault,  sir,  was  not 
in  the  men,  but  in  the  impetuous  methods  of  all  single 
and  overgrown  assemblies.  The  disease  is  chronic.  It 
is  incorporate  in  our  system.  The  same  system  which 
gave  to  the  committee  appointed  "  to  prepare,"  in  reply 
to  the  Southern  protest  of  1844, "  a  document  in  rela- 
tion to  some  of  the  most  important  questions  that  ever 
engaged  the  attention  of  the  Church "  only  the  few 
brief  hours  that  intervened  between  "  Saturday  evening, 
June  8,  and  Monday,  June  10,  late  in  the  afternoon 
session  !  !  "*  gave  at  Chicago,  in  1868,  to  the  Commit- 
tee on  the  Plan  of  Lay  Delegation,  which  was  to  estab- 
lish or  overturn  the  scriptural  foundations  on  which 
our  fathers  had  built  up  so  prayerfully  and  zealously 
the  whole  superstructure  of  our  Church  government, 
"  a  night  session  !  !  !  "  We  need  not  say,  sir,  that  the 
system  which  can  permit  such  indecent  haste,  such  im- 
petuosity in  the  gravest  legislation  of  the  Church,  is  but 
little  credit  to  it — that  it  calls  aloud  for  amendment; 
that  the  specific  remedy  which  legislative  science  points 
out  is  the  check  of  distinct  and  separate  houses — the 
legislative  brake,  with  which  the  Church  may  shut  down 
upon  all  such  crude  and  hastily  prepared  legislative 
schemes;  by  which  it  may  compel  deliberation. 

*  History  of  the  Great  Secession,  p.  347. 


232 


PKINCirLES  OF  ClltrfeCU  GOVKIINMENT. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

THE  IMPORTANT  INTERESTS  TO  BE  PROTECTED. 

THIRD    ARGUIIENT    IS    THE    GENERAL    CONFERENCE  SPEECH. 

The  division  of  this  body  into  two  distinct  and  sepa- 
rate houses  is  demanded  for  the  better  protection  of 
the  interests  of  the  ministerial  and  lay  orders  so  dis- 
tinctly recognized  in  the  plan,  and  so  decidedly  marked 
on  all  the  pages  of  the  Church's  history. 

As  to  the  origin  or  authority  of  these  orders  in  the 
scriptural  organism  of  the  Church  we  are  not,  in  this 
argument,  ])articularly  concerned.  It  will  be  sufficient 
for  our  purpose  to  observe  that  these  orders  have  always 
existed,  and  that  tlioy  probably  always  will  exist  in  the 
militant  Cliurcli,  and  especially  that  they  are  the  de 
facto  orders  of  the  plan  with  whicli  we  have  to  do. 

The  mutual  liability  of  these  orders  to  encroach  upon 
each  other's  prerogatives  is  a  fact  which  cannot  well  be 
denied.  History  abounds  in  the  most  melancholy  illus- 
trations and  startling  evidences  of  the  existence  of 
imminent  and  fearful  peril. 

The  usurpation  by  the  order  of  the  clergy  of  nearly 
all  the  sacred  rights  and  privileges  of  the  laity  consti- 
tutes the  long-continued  and  powerful  ecclesiastical 
despotism  of  Rome,  and  the  arrogation  to  the  order  of 
the  laity  of  at  least  some  of  the  sacred  rights  and 
scriptural  functions  of  the  order  of  the  ministry  has 


Important  Interests  to  be  Protected,  233 


given  us  the  comparative  weakness  and, inefficiency  of 
many  of  the  sects  of  Protestantism. 

But,  sir,  we  need  not  argue  this  point.  The  provis- 
ion for  "a  separate  vote"  in  the  plan  concedes  the  de- 
mand there  is  for  protection.*  To  accomplish  our  pur- 
pose we  have  but  to  point  out  to  this  body  a  few  of  the 
main  evidences  that  the  provisions  of  the  plan  are 
inadequate  to  secure  the  rights  of  either  order,  espe- 
cially of  the  laity.  It  is  a  fact  of  marvelous  signifi- 
cance that  there  is  nothing  in  the  plan  to  designate 
the  number  of  either  order  that  shall  be  necessary 
to  constitute  a  quorum  for  the  transaction  of  business. 
The  order  of  the  laity,  at  the  last  General  Conference, 
might  have  been  left  out  of  the  quorum  altogether 
without  in  the  least  violating  the  letter  of  the  plan; 
for  tlure  were  more  than  "  two  thirds  of  the  whole 
number  of  ministerial  and  lay  delegates"  in  the  clerical 
order  alone,  out  of  which  the  quorum  could  have  been 
formed. 

On  the  last  day  of  the  Brooklyn  session,  in  which 
some  of  the  most  important  business  of  the  session  was 
transacted,  nearly  two  thirds  of  the  laymen  were  absent, 
and,  so  far  as  the  plan  was  concerned,  might  all  have 

*  In  a  speech  before  the  Brooklyn  General  Conference  in  1872 
J<id<i;e  Goodrich,  of  Rock  River,  spoke  of  the  provision  for  voting  sep- 
arately, when  either  order  sliould  demand  it,  us  follows:  "  This  meas- 
nre,  it  seems  to  me,  is  one  protection,  not  of  atcgression,  a  power  by 
which  the  laymen  as  well  as  the  ministry  can  pi'otoet  themselves- 
and  if  the  laity  attempt  to  encroach  upon  the  rig:lits  of  the  ministry 
they  can  protect  themselves;  tliat  was  all  that  was  intended  by  those 
who  originated  tills  scheme." — Daily  Christian  Advocate,  May  22,  1872. 
—J.  H.  P. 


234      Pkinciples  of  Church  Government. 


been  so  without  invalidation  to  the  legislation  of  the  ses- 
sion in  the  slightest  degree.  A  plan  making  no  provision 
against  such  possible  contingencies,  sir,  certainly  does 
not  furnish  the  surest  safeguard  of  the  interests  of  the 
laity  in  the  General  Conference,  and  political  sagacity 
can  never  justify  such  laxity  of  legal  restraint,  or  such 
possible  remissness  on  tlie  part  of  the  chosen  represent- 
atives of  the  people  under  the  plan.  Political  science 
never  trusts  the  interests  of  a  certain  class  to  the  mere 
generosity  or  goodness  of  another  class.  It  fortifies 
the  interests  of  each  class  in  the  very  structure  of  the 
government,  so  that  the  defensive  ramparts  of  each 
class  shall  enfilade  the  threatening  positions  of  every 
aggressive  class. 

Again,  and  here  we  shake,  as  with  our  foot,  the  ver- 
iest ho(j  that  was  ever  under  a  totteiing  structure.  The 
interests  of  both  orders  are  equally  imperiled  by  the 
amazing  fact  that  to  a  small  minority,  Avithout  superior 
facilities  for  reaching  maturcr  or  safer  conclusions, 
power  is  given  to  bar  a  majority ! ! 

In  the  United  States  Senate,  where  the  previous  ques- 
tion is  never  moved,  where  discussion  is  absolutely  un- 
restricted, where  the  incumbents  hold  their  positions  by 
a  tenure  three  times  as  long  as  the  representatives  of 
the  people,  and  are  thus  three  times  as  far  removed  from 
all  popular  waves  of  excitement,  with  more  than  three 
times  the  advantages  for  arriving  at  juster  judgments 
and  maturer  measures — there  legislative  wisdom  will 
allow  a  minority  of  senators  to  check  or  bar  a  major- 
ity of  representatives  ;  but  in  the  plan  of  Episcopal 
Methodism  a  small   minority,   sitting   in  the  same 


Important  Interests  to  be  Protected.  235 


overgrown  assembly,  listening  to  the  same  speeches, 
under  the  same  waves  of  popular  excitement,  subject 
to  the  manipulations  of  the  same  adroit  leadership, 
amazing  as  it  maj'  seem,  have  organic  power  to  bar 
a  large  majority,  and  to  thus  effectually  control  all 
legislation!  Were  the  fundamental  prinoiples  of  de- 
mocracy and  legislative  science  ever  moi'e  conspicu- 
ously violated? 

How  can  the  interests  of  either  order  be  safe  under 
the  workings  of  a  plan  which,  according  to  the  most 
favorable  interpretation  possible,  may  subject  the  entire 
legislation  of  the  Church  to  the  dictation  of  twenty- 
three  laymen,  and  which,  according  to  the  interpreta- 
tion most  natural  and  evident,  places  it  at  the  mercy 
of  five  only ! 

Are  you  skeptical  ?  Look  at  it.  We  will  take  the 
best  possible  principle  of  interpretation  to  which  the 
])lan  may  be  subjected;  namely,  that  no  less  than  one 
third  of  the  whole  number  of  either  order  elect  can 
demand  a  separate  vote.  Now,  sir,  the  whole  number 
of  laymen  in  the  present  body  is  one  hundred  and 
Ihirty-five,  and  one  third  of  the  M'hole  number  is  forty- 
five,  who  alone  can  order  a  separate  vote.  But  the 
vote  once  ordered,  a  majority  of  this  number,  or  twenty- 
three,  may  concur  in  or  defeat  every  measure  in  the 
legislation  of  the  Church  I  !  ! 

Now,  sir,  take  what  may  be  called  the  worst  princij)le 
of  interpretation,  and  yet,  as  we  believe,  the  most  nat- 
ural and  sensible,  that  "  one  third  of  either  order,"  in 
the  quorum  which  is  ready  for  the  transaction  of  busi- 
ness, may  order  a  separate  vote.    But  if  all  the  clerical 


236 


Principles  op  Church  Government. 


delegates  are  present  fifteen  laymen  only  will  be  neces- 
sary to  constitute  a  quorum,  and  five,  or  one  third  of 
that  number,  may  order  a  separate  vote,  and  thus  hey, 
holt,  or  bar  the  entire  legislation  of  E})iscopal  Method- 
ism !  * 

Objectionable  and  preposterous  as  this  may  seem,  sir, 
we  regret  to  say  that  this  possibility  of  a  small  minority 
b:irring  a  large  majority  of  the  Conference  does  not 
fully  exhibit  the  imminent  perils  of  the  plan;  for,  this 
call  for  a  separate  vote  being  optional,  we  ha\  e  precisely 
the  condition  for  the  natural  and  inevitable  develop- 
ment of  those  suspicions,  jealousies,  and  counterplot- 
tings  which,  in  the  natural  hot-bed  of  a  single  over- 
grown popular  assembly,  can  but  operate  to  the  preju- 
dice, if  not  the  destruction,  of  all  the  interests  of  either 
order  involved.  In  the  Episcopal  General  Convention 
both  orders  invariably  vote  separately,  according  to 
constitutional  provision,  and  thus  avoid  at  least  one 

*Bisliop  Harris  ruled  at  Baltimore,  Saturday,  May  26,  1876,  that 
"one  third  of  the  layniou  present  in  the  quorum  may  order  a  separate 
vote.''  In  the  same  Gcuei'al  Conference,  under  a  call  for  the  previous 
question,  Jarnes  S.  Smart  moved  the  adoption  of  the  following: 

''Resolved,  That  tiie  vote  be  taken  by  the  ministers  and  laymen 
separately." 

A  question  of  order  having  been  raised  concerning  the  call  for  a 
separate  vote,  Bishop  Simpson  decided  that  the  separate  vote  of  the 
ministry  could  be  called  for  only  by  a  minister,  and  tlie  separate  vote 
of  the  laity  only  by  a  layman,  and  that  if  on  such  a  call  one  third  of 
either  order  made  snch  a  demand,  the  separate  vote  must  Ije  taken. 
From  this  decision  the  mover  of  tlie  resolution  appealed,  but  the  rul- 
ing of  the  bishop  was  sustained  by  the  Conference. — Journal,  1872, 
pp.  147,  148. 


Important  Interests  to  be  Protected.  237 


occasion  of  stirring  up  bad  blood  between  tlie  differing 
orders  in  the  body.* 

For  the  protection  of  all  the  interests  of  the  various 
orders  of  society  in  the  field  of  legislation,  history  has 
vindicated  the  wisdom  not  only  of  a  separate  vote,  but 
of  separate  deliberations — of  separate  houses.  This 
idea  of  the  protection  of  orders  is  the  very  root  out  of 
which  the  political  wisdom  of  the  ages  has  branched 
into  the  divisions  of  tlie  legislative  body.  From  the 
days  of  Homer  to  our  own  the  thorough-going,  prac- 
tical sense  of  the  world  has  provided  separate  houses 
for  the  protection  of  distinct  classes  of  orders  in 
society. 

Among  the  Greeks  there  was  the  lioula,  or  council 
of  the  elders,  who,  as  Homer  tells  us,  sat  in  a  circle 
around  the  king  as  counselors  for  the  protection  of 
the  interests  of  royalty.    And  then  there  was  the 

*At  the  General  Conference  of  1872  Richard  W.  Thompson,  of 
Indiana,  having  asked  for  a  separate  vote  of  the  two  orders  in  the 
election  of  bishops.  Judge  Goodrich,  of  Rock  River,  said:  "I  am  very- 
sorry  that  in  this  body,  on  such  an  important  occasion  as  this,  there 
has  come  such  a  call  as  tliis.  I  supposed  that  we  had  come  here 
on  an  equality,  and  I  did  not  think  that  there  was  any  layman 
on  this  floor  that  would  ask  that  in  the  election  of  bishops  ihirty- 
four  laymen  should  control  this  General  Conference.  (Hearl  liear!) 
It  seems  to  me  in  such  a  vote  as  this  it  is  preposterous,  and  I 
believe  it  is  the  entering  wedge  of  a  separation  on  other  questions, 
and  the  arousing  of  a  spirit  of  antagonism  between  the  laity  and  the 
ministry  which  was  never  contemplated  by  those  who  voted  that 
lay  delegation  should  be  introduced  into  the  General  Conference.  .  .  . 
It  seeras  to  me  it  is  wrong — a  great  wrong — and  I  hope  it  will  never 
be  perpetuated  here."  The  call  was  not  sustained,  over  two  thirds 
of  the  laymen  voting  in  the  negative. — J.  H.  P. 


238      Principles  of  Church  Government. 


Agora,  the  tentative  assembly  of  the  people,  to  which 
the  king  used  to  come  down  to  "  feel  his  way,"  meeting 
with  smiles  or  frowns,  cheers  of  approbation  or  hollow 
murmurs  of  dissent,  as  his  propositions  pleased  or  of- 
fended them. 

Among  the  Romans,  the  civil  law-^vers  of  the  world, 
the  Senate,  the  members  of  which  represented  the  three 
hundred  sovereign  clans  of  Rome,  was  especially  the 
bulwark  of  the  prerogatives  of  royalty,  and  the  Comitia 
Curiata  or  Centuriata  the  protectors  of  their  respect- 
ive constituencies  among  the  people.  Out  of  these,  the 
natural  tentamlm  of  tlie  old  monarchies,  the  distinct 
and  separate  legislative  organs  of  constitutional  mon- 
archies and  of  the  free  republics  of  more  recent  times 
have  been  developed.  The  House  of  Lords,  the  natural 
protectors  of  constitutional  royalty,  and  the  House  of 
Commons,  the  champions  of  the  people,  have  always,  at 
least  so  far  as  history  has  thrown  its  light,  sat  and  de- 
liberated apart.  "  The  opinion  that  the  several  estates 
sat  and  voted  together,"  says  Lingard,  "  derives  no 
support  from  the  rolls.  It  is  evident,"  he  continues, 
"  that  as  their  grants,  their  petitions,  and  their  interests 
were  different  the;/  woidd  deliberate  separately,  and  we 
find  the  chancellor  after  he  had  proposed  to  them  in 
common  the  subjects  for  their  consideration,  pointed 
out  to  them  different  chambers  in  which  they  should 
assemble."  * 

Hallam,  one  of  tlie  most  reliable  of  historians,  says: 
"That  they  (the  two  houses  of  Parliament)  were  ever 
intermingled  in  voting  appears  inconsistent  with  likeli- 

*Lingard's  Uistory  of  EmjJand,  vol.  iv,  p.  120. 


Impoutant  Interests  to  be  Protected.  239 


hood  and  authority.  .  .  .  Tliere  is  abundance  of  proof 
of  their  separate  existence  long  before  the  seventeenth 
year  of  Edward  III.  The  Commons  sat  at  Acton  Bur- 
nell,  while  the  upper  house  was  at  Shrewsbury."  * 

All  authorities  agree  that  throughout  a  period  of 
three  hundred  years,  while  the  House  of  Lords  con- 
vened in  Westminster  Hall,  which  was  built  expressly 
for  them  by  Rufus,  the  House  of  Commons  held  its 
sessions  in  a  department  of  Westminster  Abbey.  The 
philosophy  of  protection  in  these  separnte  sittings  is 
Avell  given  in  the  following  from  Blackstone :  "  The  no- 
bility," says  our  author,  "are  the  pillars  which  are 
reared  from  tlie  people  more  immediately  for  the  sup- 
port of  the  throne.  And  since  titles  of  nobility  are 
thus  expedient  to  the  State,  it  is  also  expedient  that 
they  should  form  a  separate  branch  of  the  Legislature." 

If  they  were  confounded  with  the  mass  of  the  people, 
and  like  them  had  only  a  vote  in  electing  representa- 
tives, their  privileges  would  soon  be  borne  down  and 
overwhelmed  by  the  popular  torrent,  which  would  ef- 
fectually level  all  distinctions  therefrom.  It  is  highh/ 
necessary  that  the  body  of  the  nobles  should  have  a 
distinct  assembli/,  distinct  deliberations,  and  distinct 
powers  from  the  Co7n?no7is.  f 

And  De  Lolrae  says:  "The  representatives  of  the 
people,  on  the  other  hand,  do  not  fail  to  procure  for 
themselves  every  advantage  that  may  enable  them  to 
use  the  powers  with  which  they  have  been  intrusted, 
and  to  adopt  every  rule  of  proceeding  that  may  make 

*  Hallam's  Constitutional  Ui-storij  of  Eajland,  p.  2G. 
f  Comment,  vol.  i,  p.  57. 


210       Principles  op  Church  Government. 


their  resolutions  to  be  truly  the  result  of  reflection  and 
deliberation.  Thus  it  was,"  says  this  astute  writer, 
"that  the  representatives  of  the  English  nation,  soon 
after  their  first  establishment,  became  formed  into  a 
separate  assembly.''''* 

We  hazard  nothing  in  the  statement  that  the  laity  of 
the  last  General  Conference  did  more  for  the  protection 
of  their  rights,  as  an  order,  in  the  three  or  four  hours 
in  which  they  were  convened  as  a  distinct  and  separate 
deliberative  body,  at  Washington  Street  Church,  than 
in  all  the  weeks  of  that  protracted  session  besides.  Dis- 
tinct and  separate  assemblies  for  the  protection  of  dif- 
ferent orders  is  the  common  sense  of  history. 

*  Gonsiitutional  History  of  England,  p.  248. 


TuE  Division  of  Labor  Principle.  241 


CHAPTER  XV. 

THE  DIVISION  OF  LABOR  PRINCIPLE. 

FOURTH  ARGUMENT   OF  THE   BALTIMORE  SPEECH. 

Again,  sir,  the  division  of  our  legislative  body  into 
two  distinct  and  separate  houses  is  demanded  by  the 
higiiest  and  most  authoritative  principle  of  civilization 
— the  division  of  labor  principle. 

We  shall  not  attempt,  before  so  learned  a  body  as 
this,  the  elucidation  of  one  of  the  most  fundamental 
postulates  found  in  every  text-book  on  political  econ- 
omy in  Christendom.  All  study,  all  observation,  all 
experience,  attest  its  validity.  Special  aptitudes,  spe- 
cial opportunity,  special  effort,  and  consequent  special 
qualifications,  give  genuine  economy  of  time,  economy 
of  labor,  economy  of  capital — whether  of  bi'ain  or  mon- 
ey— and  genuine  economy  of  results.  The  common 
sense  of  the  world  goes  to  reputable  physicians  with  its 
questions  of  medicine ;  to  first-class  lawyers  with  its 
points  of  law ;  to  famous  financiers  with  its  problems  of 
finance;  and  as  naturally  to  the  distinguished  sages  of 
the  Christian  ministry  with  its  questions  of  ecclesiastical 
polity. 

This  principle,  sir,  originating  in  the  special  functions 
of  the  differing  persons  of  the  Godhead,  in  the  great 
work  of  redemption,  illustrated  in  the  distribution  of  a 
universe  of  varying  physical,  mental,  and  moral  forces 
16 


242      Principles  of  Church  Government. 


to  their  particular  ends,  and  enthroned  on  the  very- 
summits  of  Christian  civilization,  we  would  naturally 
suppose  it  might  be  introduced  with  profit  into  the 
legislation  of  the  Church. 

Indeed,  sir,  that  very  division  of  the  legislative  body 
which  is  demanded  for  the  protection  of  the  free  consti- 
tution of  the  Church,  for  the  protection  of  its  general 
interests  from  the  perils  of  hasty  and  indiscreet  legisla- 
tion, and  especially  for  the  mutual  protection  of  the 
two  great  and  distinctive  orders  of  the  Church,  affords 
us  precisely  the  condition  for  the  most  happy  and  thor- 
ough application  of  this  most  authoritative  principle. 
It  is  evident,  at  a  glance,  that  the  division  of  any  legis- 
lative body  into  two  distinct  and  separate  houses  must 
double  the  number  of  speakers  on  the  floor,  must  double 
the  number  of  hours  of  deliberation,  both  in  the  com- 
mittees and  in  the  sessions  of  the  bodies  each  day — thus 
doubling,  of  conrso,  tlie  freedom  of  debate  and  the  con- 
sequent thoroughness  and  safety  of  legislation. 

As  measures  prepared  with  a  degree  of  care  that  dare 
challenge  the  clear,  cold,  impartial,  and  searching  scru- 
tiny of  a  rival  house  could  with  safety  be  much  more 
speedily  disposed  of  in  the  concurring  body,  there 
would  be  on  the  whole  a  manifest  economy  of  time,  as 
well  as  greater  security  of  interests,  in  our  Church  coun- 
cils. In  the  triennial  sessions  of  the  General  Conven- 
tion of  the  Episcopal  Church,  such  is  the  practical  value 
of  this  doubling  of  the  hours,  powers,  and  facilities  for 
deliberation  that  they  are  enabled  to  diminish  the  time 
usually  occupied  by  single  houses  in  their  sessions 
nearly,  if  not  quite,  one  half.    Thus,  although  the  Gen- 


The  Division  op  Labor  Principle.  243 


eral  Convention  of  1865  met  in  Philadelphia  on  Octo- 
ber 4,  and  the  published  Journal  of  their  proceedings 
is  quite  as  voluminous  as  that  of  our  General  Confer- 
ence of  1860,  yet  they  were  enabled  to  adjouni  on  the 
24th  of  the  same  month,  occupying  in  their  delibera- 
tions, exclusive  of  three  Sundays,  but  seventeen  days. 

Where  the  initiative  in  certain  classes  of  measures  is 
respectively  given  to  each  house,  the  economy  of  time, 
labor,  and  legislative  capital  or  talent,  in  the  highest 
possible  degree,  will  be  most  impressively  illustrated. 

Thus,  while  the  House  of  Lords  is  discussing  the  pre- 
rogatives of  the  crown,  or  the  privileges  of  the  peerage, 
the  House  of  Commons  could  most  economically  occupy 
the  same  time  in  giving  origin  and  form  to  their  "  mon- 
ey bills,"  a  riff/it  which  the  representatives  of  the  peo- 
ple in  England  have  held  for  ages  with  an  ever-tight- 
ening constitutional  grasp. 

To  come  a  little  nearer  home:  While  the  senators 
of  the  United  States,  upon  whom  rests  with  special 
responsibility  the  duty  of  determining  our  relations  with 
the  nations  of  the  earth,  are  engrossed  in  discussing  the 
provisions  of  a  foreign  treaty,  or  in  debating  those 
fundamental  principles  or  deep-laid  conditions  upon 
which  the  finance,  of  nations  and  of  the  world  must  for- 
ever rest,  the  more  immediate  representatives  of  the 
people  can  be  economically  engaged  in  giving  origin 
and  concrete  form  to  revenue  or  appropriation  bills. 
Or  still  further,  to  come  directly  home:  While  the 
clerical  senators  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
should,  in  obedience  to  the  behests  of  the  highest  legis- 
lative wisdom,  be  engaged  in  framing  measures  for  the 


24:-i      Principles  of  Church  Government. 


well-goveruing  of  the  Church  in  things  spiritual,  for 
which  their  constant  experience  in  the  administration 
of  moral  discipline  ought  especially  to  fit  them,  the 
House  of  Lay  Representatives  will  illustrate  the  divine 
economy  ttiere  is  in  the  division  of  labor  principle  by 
engaging  meanwhile,  as  the  especial  and  immcdiale 
representatives  of  the  people,  in  giving  origin  and  form 
to  all  measures  of  finance  and  temporalities;  for  which 
all  must  agree  that  their  life-work  ought,  at  least,  to 
have  especially  fitted  them. 


Hakmony  and  Unity  to  be  Restoked.  245 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

HARMONY  AND  UNITY  TO  BE  RESTORED. 

FIFTH  ARGVMEXT  OF  THE  BALTIMORE  SPEECH. 

The  division  of  this  General  Conference  body  into 
two  distinct,  separate,  and  concurring  bouses — with  the 
initiative  as  above  described — is  demanded  as  the  ex- 
press and  only  possible  nie:ins  for  the  perfect  restora- 
tion of  harmony  and  unity  between  the  apparently 
hopeless  and  most  deplorable  antagonisms  that  exist 
between  the  principles  of  the  old  and  neio  politico  of 
Methodism. 

The  divine  economy,  grounded  in  the  eternal  fitness 
of  legislative  things,  and  rising,  as  we  have  seen,  in  the 
division  of  lahor  principle  to  the  very  summit  of  the 
loftiest  civilization,  shall  save  us  more  tlian  time,  more 
than  labor,  more  than  capital ;  it  shall  save  to  us  the 
most  precious  of  all  earthly  legacies:  the  unsullied 
honor  of  our  fathers. 

That  the  fathers  of  Methodism,  its  founders  under 
God,  both  in  England  and  in  America,  held  with  abso- 
lute unanimity  and  posiiiveness  of  conviction  the  es- 
2)ecial  responsihility  of  the  Christian  ministry,  as  the 
officers  appointed  by  the  great  Head  of  the  Church  for 
the  feeding  and  governing  of  the  flock  of  Christ  in 
spiritual  things,  the  following  consensus  will  forever 
put  beyond  a  question. 


24:6      Principles  of  Church  Government, 


Hear  John  Wesley.  In  his  Journal*  he  says: 
"  The  CImrcli  has  a  perpetual  succession  of  pastors 
divinely  appointed  and  divinely  assisted,"  On  Rev, 
i,  20,  "  The  seven  stars  are  the  angels  of  the  seven 
churches,"  he  thus  writes  in  his  Notes:  "In  each 
church  there  was  one  pastor,  or  ruling  minister,  to 
whom  all  the  rest  were  subordinate.  This  pastor, 
bishop,  or  overseer  had  the  peculiar  care  of  his  flock. 
On  him  the  prosperity  of  that  congregation  in  a  great 
measure  depended,  and  he  was  to  answer  for  all  their 
souls  at  the  judgment-seat  of  Christ."  And  in  the  sec- 
ond chapter  he  continues:  "The  seven  churches,  with 
their  seven  angels,  represent  the  whole  Christian 
Church,  as  it  subsists  in  every  age."  "  This,"  he  says, 
"  is  a  point  of  deep  importance,  and  always  necessary 
to  be  remembered :  that  these  seven  churches  are,  as  it 
were,  a  sample  of  the  whole  Church  of  Christ,  as  it  was 
then,  is  now,  and  as  it  will  be  in  all  ages."  In  his  sermon 
on  the  text,  "  Obey  them  that  have  the  rule  over  you,  and 
submit  yourselves,  for  they  watch  for  your  souls  as 
they  that  must  give  an  account"  (Ileb.  xiii,  17),  John 
Wesley  has,  we  believe,  gone  safely  between  the  Scylla 
of  Romanism,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  Charybdis  of 
Congregationalism  on  the  other.  "  Many  of  the  Ro- 
manists," he  says,  "  believe  an  implicit  faith  is  due  to 
the  doctrine  delivered  by  those  who  rule  over  them,  and 
that  implicit  obedience  ought  to  be  paid  to  whatever 
commands  they  give.  And  not  much  less  has  been  in- 
sisted on  by  several  eminent  men  of  the  Church  of  En- 
gland ;  although  it  is  true  that  the  generality  of  Prot- 
*  Vol.  ii,  p.  89. 


Harmony  and  Unity  to  be  Restored.  247 


estants  are  apt  to  run  to  the  other  extreme,  allowing 
their  pastors  no  authority  at  all,  but  making  them  both 
the  creatures  and  the  servants  of  their  congregations. 
And  very  many  of  the  English  Church  there  are  ■who 
agree  with  them,  supposing  that  the  pastor  is  altogether 
dependent  upon  the  people,  who,  in  their  judgment, 
have  a  right  to  direct,  as  well  as  to  choose,  their  min- 
isters." "But  is  it  not  jjossiblc,"  he  asks,  "to  tind  a 
medium  between  these  two  extremes  ?  Is  there  any 
necessity  for  us  to  run  either  into  one  or  the  other  ?  If 
we  set  human  laws  out  of  the  question  and  attend  to  the 
oracles  of  God,  we  may  certainly  discover  a  middle 
path  in  this  important  matter." 

What  !  Wesley  appealing  to  the  "  oracles  of  God  " 
on  the  most  important  question  of  Church  government 
that  could  possibly  be  raised,  the  relation  of  the  pastor 
and  people,  when  "  no  part  of  our  Church  goverimient 
is  inspired  !  "  Amazing  as  it  may  seem,  John  Wesley 
did  so  appeal,  and  the  conclusion  he  reached  is  one 
which  never  can  be  invalidated  by  any  one  who  admits 
that  obedience  to  pastors  is  enjoined  in  the  word  of 
God  ;  a  conclusion  that  not  only  is  the  field  of  optional 
legislation  in  the  Church  bounded  by  the  oracles  of 
God — by  the  mountains  of  positive  enactments  on  the 
one  hand,  and  the  "great  gulfs"  of  positive  pro- 
liibitions  on  the  other — but  that  this  divinely  limited 
field  of  optional  legislation  is  precisely  the  domain 
over  which  the  Scrij>tures  install  the  pastor,  elder,  or 
bishop  as  the  spiritual  governor  of  the  flock  of  God. 
Murk  the  resistless  vigor  of  his  logic  :  "  The  things 
which  tliey  (the  pastors)  enjoin,  must  be  either  enjoined 


248       Principles  of  Church  Government. 


of  God,  forbidden  by  him,  or  indifferent "  (that  is,  op- 
tional). 

"  In  things  forbidden  of  God,"  he  continues,  "  we 
dare  not  obey  them,  for  we  are  to  obey  God  rather  than 
man.  In  things  enjoined  of  God  we  do  not  properly 
obey  them,  but  our  common  Father;  therefore,  if  we 
obey  them  at  all  it  must  be  in  things  indifferent  (op- 
tional). The  sum  is,  it  is  the  duty  of  every  private 
Christian  to  obey  his  spiritual  pastor  by  either  doing  or 
leaving  undone  any  thing  of  an  indifferent  (optional) 
nature;  that  is,  any  thing  in  no  way  determined  in  the 
word  of  God."  "  llow  little  is  this,"  he  exclaims,  "  un- 
derstood in  the  Protestant  woykl;"  and  yet  he  says, 
"  there  is  not  a  more  express  command  in  the  Old  or 
New  Testament.  No  v:ord  can  he  more  clear  and  plain; 
no  command  more  direct  and  positive.''''* 

And  yet,  sir,  Jolin  Wesley's  statement  with  reference 
to  the  higher  and  optional  officers  sometimes  elected  by 
the  pastors  or  elders,  "that  neither  Christ  nor  his  apos- 
tles prescribe  any  particular  form  of  Church  govern- 
ment," is  forthwith  made  to  cancel  all  that  he  has  so 
explicitly  and  authoritatively  said  with  reference  to  the 
scriptural  relations  of  pastors  and  people  ! 

God  has  "  prescribed  no  particular /owt"  of  the  nose 
for  the  adornment  of  the  "  human  face  divine."  Nei- 
ther the  Roman,  the  Grecian,  nor  any  other  pattern  can 
claim  to  be  the  "  particularly  prescribed  form."  These 
all  vary  in  their  outlines  or  contour  with  the  surround- 
ings of  every  nation  and  every  individual.  And  yet  it 
is  pretty  generally  believed  among  Methodists  that  the 
*  Vol.  ii,  p.  327. 


Harmony  and  Unity  to  be  Restorkd.  249 


function  of  smelling,  the  same  in  all  forms,  is  ordained 
of  God  !  The  form  and  color  of  all  eyes  may  differ,  yet 
the  function  of  vision,  the  same  in  all  "  particular 
forms,"  is  doubtless  divinely  prescribed.  So  "  particu- 
lar forms "  of  Church  government  may  vary,  and  yet 
the  essential  functions  of  pastors  and  people  in  the  or- 
ganism of  the  Christian  Church  may  be  ordained  of  God, 
and  remain  forever  the  same. 

What  matters  the  differing  names  of  divine,  dominie, 
doctor,  elder,  presbyter,  preacher,  minister,  pastor,  or 
teacher !  Is  not  the  function  of  the  ministry  substan- 
tially the  same  in  all  the  Churches,  and  is  not  the  pas- 
toral function — of  spiritually  guiding,  leading,  feeding, 
governing  the  flock — ordained  of  God  ?  And  what  mat- 
tei  s  the  differing  names  of  deacon,  steward,  vestryman, 
etc.!  Is  not  the  function  of  temporalities  substantially 
the  same  in  all  the  Churches,  and  was  not  that  function 
ordained  of  God  ?  So  Wesley  believed,  and  so  believed 
John  Fletcher,  who  "was  of  one  heart  and  one  soul" 
with  John  Wesley. 

lie  says,  "  The  evangelical  ministry  is  substantially 
the  same  through  every  age."  "  The  commission  which 
the  great  apostle  received  contained  essentially  nothing 
more  ihnn  the  acknowledged  duty  of  every  minister  of 
the  Gospel."  Again,  "  Our  pious  reformers  were  unan- 
iiiiously  of  the  opinion  that  Christ  appoints,  and  in  some 
sort  inspires,  all  true  pastors;  that  he  commits  the  flock 
to  their  keeping,  and  that  their  principal  care  is  the  same 
with  that  of  the  first  evangelists."*  Writing  to  Dr. 
Price,  of  Bristol,  he  makes  the  following  case:  "The 
*  Works,  vol.  iii,  p.  20. 


250      Principles  op  Church  Government. 


majority  of  a  certain  congregation  of  Protestants  in 
Bristol  expressed  a  desire  to  have  you  for  their  pastor, 
and  upon  this  title  you  were  ordained.  But  does  it  fol- 
low that  your  authority  to  preach  the  Gospel  ascends 
from  your  flock  to  you  ?  If  your  congregation  insisted 
upon  your  preaching  to  them  smooth  things,  or  prophe- 
sying deceits,  because  they  chose  you  to  be  their  minis- 
ter, would  you  not  directly  convince  them  of  thoir folly  ! 
Would  you  not  say,  '  Gentlemen,  though  I  am  your 
minister,  and  thougli  I  was  ordained  in  consequence  of 
your  suffrages,  yet  now  that  I  am  ordained,  I  have  an 
authority  you  never  gave,  nor  can  give?'" 

These  are  the  sentiments  of  the  man,  sir,  Avho  drove 
the  Wesleyan  war  chariots,  all  aflame  with  liuhtnings  of 
Bible  logic,  along  the  entire  line  of  the  Arminian  bat- 
tle. The  authority  of  the  pastor  is  simply  that  of  an 
elective  office,  but  tliat  oftice  is  empowered  by  llini  who 
"  gave  some  pastors  and  teachers  for  the  pi'rlecting  of 
saints,  for  the  work  of  the  ministry,  for  the  edifying  of 
the  body  of  Christ ;  "  just  as  the  authority  of  President 
Grant,  in  a  constitutional  ofiice,  is  the  authority  which 
comes  not  directly  from  those  who  elect  him,  but  from 
the  Constitution,  the  organic  law  of  the  States,  enacted 
three  fourths  of  a  century  ago. 

Richard  Watson,  who,  as  Dr.  Stevens  says,  "  was  the 
most  commanding  intellect  of  Wesleyan  Methodism," 
says  :  "  Tliat  lliese  elders  or  presbyters  had  the  power 
of  goveiaiment  cannot  be  denied,  because  it  is  expressly 
assigned  to  them  in  the  Scriptures;  it  was  inherent  in 
their  pastoral  office."  *  This  "  most  commanding  intel- 
*  Lu-it.,  vol.  ii,  p.  597. 


Harmony  and  Unity  to  be  Restored.  251 


lect"  tells  us  that  "  the  term  pastor  implies  tlie  duties 
of  instruction  and  government,  of  feeding  and  ruling 
the  flock  of  Christ;  and  as  the  presbyters  or  bishops 
were  ordained  in  the  several  Churches  both  by  the 
apostles  and  the  evangelists,  and  rules  are  left  by  St. 
Paul  as  to  their  appointment,  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  these  are  the  pastors  spoken  of  in  Eph.  iv,  11, 
(as  of  divine  appointment),  and  that  they  were  designed 
to  be  the  permanent  ministers  of  the  Church,  and  that 
with  them  both  the  government  of  the  Church  and  the 
performance  of  its  leading  religious  services  were  de- 
posited." *  And  again:  "There  seems,  therefore,  to 
be  the  most  conclusive  evidence  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment that,  alter  the  extraordinary  ministry  vested  in 
apostles,  propliets,  and  evangelists  had  ceased,  the  feed- 
ing and  oversight — that  is,  the  teaching  and  govern- 
ment of  the  Churches  —  devolved  upon  an  order  of 
men  indiscriminately  called  pastors,  presbyters,  and 
bishops."  t  And  with  Richard  ^yatson  the  fathers  of 
American  Methodism  most  fully  and  (iordially  agree. 

Coke  and  Asbury  declare,  in  their  notes  on  the  Dis- 
cipline, that  the  "  ofiice  of  elder  "  is  one  which  every 
organized  Church  in  the  world  and  in  all  ages  has 
adopted."  They  are  very  clear  and  explicit  in  their 
remarks.  On  Ileb.  xiii,  7,  17,  they  observe:  "The 
persons  here  described  as  having  the  rule,  and  a  right 
to  obedience  and  submission,  were  persons  who  had 
spoken  the  word  of  God  to  the  people  and  watched 
over  their  souls,  consequently  were  their  preachers  and 
pastors."— P.  335. 

*  Insi.,  vol.  ii,  p.  575.  f  Ihid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  576. 


252 


Principles  of  Cuurcu  Government. 


"The  pastors  are  the  persons  responsible  to  God, 
and  therefore  slioukl  be  by  no  means  fettered  in  their 
pastoral  care." — P.  332. 

"The  word  of  God  is  that  on  which  we  principally 
stand,  knowing  well  tliat  every  passage  which  relates 
to  this  subject  is  wholly  on  our  side." — P.  336.  And 
"this  commission,"  they  tell  us,  is  "to  all  ministering 
servants  to  the  end  of  the  world." — P.  306. 

"  If  the  Church,"  says  Dr.  Whedon,  "  would  teach 
her  sons  to  reason  well,  and  to  defend  her  institutes, 
let  them  study  John  Emory."  We  like  that,  but  what 
does  Bishop  John  Emory  say  to  the  sons  of  the  Church  ? 
Hear  him: 

1.  "  We  offer  our  doctrines  and  Discipline  not  as  in- 
ventions of  our  oion,  but  as  a  summary  of  what  we  be- 
lieve to  be  in  the  Bible,  with  such  prudential  means 
and  regulations  as  we  think  best  calculated  to  enable 
us  as  a  body  to  carry  them  into  effect,  to  fulfill  an 
efficient  pastoral  oversight." 

Again  Bishop  John  Emory  says:  "The  grent  Head 
of  the  Church  has  imposed  on  us  the  duty  of  preacliing 
the  Gospel,  of  administering  its  ordinances,  and  main- 
taining its  moral  discipline  among  those  over  whom  the 
Holy  Ghost  hath  in  these  respects  made  us  overseers. 
Of  these  also,  namely,  of  Gospel  doctrines,  ordinances, 
and  moral  discipline,  we  do  believe  that  the  divinely  in- 
stituted ministry  are  the  divinely  autlMrized  expound- 
ers, and  that  the  duty  of  maintaining  them  in  their 
purity,  and  of  not  permitting  our  ministrations  in  these 
respects  to  be  authoritatively  controlled  by  others, 
does  rest  upon  us  with  the  force  of  a  moral  obligation, 


Harmony  and  Umty  to  be  Restored.  253 


in  the  due  discliai-ge  of  which  our  consciences  are  in- 
volved. .  .  .  It  is  on  this  ground  that  we  resist  the 
temptations  of  temporal  advantage  which  the  proposed 
changes  hold  out  to  us."  * 

2.  Again:  "To  invest  the  ministry  with  any  author- 
ity other  than  that  which  strictly  belongs  to  their  pas- 
toral office,  agreeably  to  Gospel  order,  is  utterly  foreign 
to  our  desire.  But  if,  on  the  other  hand,  they  are  to 
be  authoritatioehj  controlled 'hj  others  in  relation  to 
doctrines,  ordinances,  and  moral  discipline,  then  is 
there,  in  our  judgment,  an  end  of  mutual  rights  and 
of  the^^ecw^«<r  functions  of  the  Christian  ministri/." — 
P.  180. 

It  was  once  a  popular  thing  to  have  a  "  conscience  " 
on  Churdi  government.  The  whole  General  Conference 
of  1828  said  their  "consciences  were  involved"  in  this 
question  of  ministerial  powers.  Alas,  how  have  the 
mighty  fallen!  Our  last  quotation  upon  this  point  shall 
be  from  the  pen  of  that  distinguished  lay  defender  of 
the  fathers.  Dr.  Bond.  He  says:  "We  believe  the 
Scriptures  nowhere  prescribe  any  form  of  government 
for  the  Christian  Church.  This,  however,"  he  modestly 
adds,  "  is  only  our  opinion."  f  But  what  can  Dr.  Bond 
mean  by  that? — that  every  thing  in  Church  govern- 
ment is  optional,  every  thing  at  the  shaping  or  molding 
of  circumstances,  nothing  permanent,  no  divine  con- 
stancy? Hear  him:  "Church  government,  then,  can- 
not bear  any  just  analogy  to  a  commonwealth  or  a  re- 
public, the  essential  element  of  wliicli  is  that  the  whole 
system  of  government  is  a  conventional  agreement  or 

*  Life  of  John  Emory,  p.  180.      \  Economy  of  Methodism,  p.  23. 


2jk      Principles  of  Church  Government. 


compact,  which  may  be  modified  from  time  to  time  by 
those  who  framed  it  as  circumstances  may  require,  or 
be  utterly  changed  by  the  governed.  .  .  .  The  Church 
of  Clirist  is  his  kingdom.  He  has  the  absolute  sover- 
eignty over  it,  having  enacted  a  complete,  perfect  code, 
wliich  no  man  or  council  may  repeal,  alter,  add  to,  or 
subtract  from,  and  obedience  to  which  is  promised  by 
every  subject  of  this  kingdom." — P.  5.  "In  Church 
government  the  supreme  power  is  acknowledged  to 
reside  in  one  only  Lord  and  Lawgiver,  to  whose  au- 
thority all  must  submit  implicitly.  And  it  is  further 
admitted  that  he  also  selects  and  appoints  officers,  who 
are  to  execute  his  commandments.  The  first  is  to  '  preach 
the  Gospel  to  every  creature,'  etc.  The  next  com- 
mandment is  that  these  officers  shall  take  the  'over- 
sight' of  the  Church  as  those  Avho  must  give  an  ac- 
count of  the  members  to  God.  And,"  he  adds,  "it 
would  seem  to  follow  that  they  must  devise  the  rules 
and  regulations  which  are  necessary  to  the  execution  of 
the  trust  confided  to  them — the  preaching  of  the  Gospel 
and  the  oversight  of  those  who  are  converted  by  their 
ministry." — P.  4.    We  need  go  no  further. 

But  how  have  these  convictions  been  regarded  ?  Is 
it  a  graceful,  a  fitting  thing  for  a  child  to  strike  its 
parent  ?  Is  it  a  thing  to  be  commended  that  Methodists 
should  throw  dirt  upon  the  reputation  of  tlie  fathers; 
that  ihey  should  trample  the  profoundest  convictions 
of  such  men  in  the  dust;  that  they  should  scout  as 
mere  drivel  the  convictions  that  were  deeper  than  the 
love  of  life,  stronger  than  the  fear  of  death;  the  con- 
victions that  thrust  them  out,  that  sent  them — the  self- 


IIakjiony  and  Unity  to  be  Restored.  255 


denying,  soul-loving  heralds  of  salvation — through  the 
world  ? — convictions  that  made  them  and  made  the 
Church,  and  made  us;  convictions  out  of  which,  under 
God,  sprang  up  as  from  a  deep  and  well-nourished  root 
our  fair  tree  of  Methodism,  with  its  spreading  branches, 
bearing  the  laity  as  fruit  unto  eternal  life ! 

But  alas,  sir,  what  have  we  done?  If  we  have  not 
denounced  the  whole  tree  as  evil,  we  have,  in  our  revo- 
lutionary zeal,  girdled  its  governmental  trunk  with  the 
battle-ax  of  "  desjjotism; "  we  have  thrown  the  stones 
of  "hierarchy"  at  its  branches;  we  have  struck  with  a 
pick-ax  cry  of  "  popery,"  until  the  tap-root  of  this  con- 
viction has  been  severed ;  nay,  with  gigantic  effort  wo 
have  uptorn  the  deep-rooted  convictions  of  our  fathers, 
shaken  from  the  dry  fibers  nearly  every  particle  of 
dust,  (for  has  not  one  of  our  venerable  leaders  said, 
"  No  part  of  our  Church  government  is  inspired  ? ") 
And  in  inverting  our  governmental  tree  we  have 
planted  the  branches  under  the  soil,  with  the  roots  in 
the  air  !  "  Pastors,  obey  them  that  have  the  rule  over 
you  in  the  plan,  and  submit  yourselves,  for  minorities 
are  now  in  the  place  of  the  word  !  ! ! " 

A  recent  philosophic  writer  of  Methodism  says,  "  the 
Church  has  made  a  grave  departure  !  "  Departure ! 
So  far  as  the  theory  of  our  fathers  was  concerned,  it 
has  made  a  change  of  base  from  heaven  to  earth. 
According  to  the  fathers,  Christ  appoints  and  in  some 
sense  inspires  all  true  pastors,  and  commits  the  flock  to 
their  keeping — that  is,  for  the  teaching  and  governing 
of  the  Church.  According  to  the  dominant  theory  of 
to-day,  the  people  are  the  source  of  power,  nnd  Christ 


256       Principles  op  Church  Government, 


has  little  or  nothing  to  do  with  Church  government — 
"  He  is  Head  over  all  things  to  the  Church  "  except  in 
church  government !! ! 

That  it  should  have  been  deemed  desirable  that 
laymen  should  participate  in  the  legislation  of  the 
Church  we  do  not  wonder.  But  that  it  should  ever 
have  been  profiered  or  accepted  on  a  principle  that 
rides  roughshod  over  the  most  sacred  and  profound 
convictions  of  our  fathers  is  to  me  a  matter  of  utter 
astonisliment,  especially  as,  in  the  light  of  the  most 
authorative  principles  of  legislative  science  and  of  the 
highest  reaches  of  civilization  and  of  fundamental  Meth- 
odism, it  was  so  absolutely,  so  utterly  uncalled  for. 

The  two-house  argument  is  at  least  American — in 
its  foundations.  Is  it  not  fundamentally  Metliod- 
istic  also?  Let  us  see.  Our  fathers  never  taught 
that  pastors  were  lords — the  absolute  and  irresponsi- 
ble dictators — of  the  Church.  There  were,  sir,  at  an 
infinite  remove  from  such  a  position.  John  Wesley 
Clin  speak  for  them  all.  "  Is  mutual  consent,^''  asks  the 
founder  of  Methodism,  "absolutely  necessary  between 
the  pastor  and  the  flock?"  His  answer  is:  "No 
question.  I  cannot  guide  any  soul  unless  he  consent 
to  be  guided  by  me  ;  neither  can  any  soul  force  me  to 
^wi^Q  \\\m  if  I  consent  7int.  Does  the  ceasing  of  this 
consent  on  either  side  dissolve  the  relation  ?  It  must, 
in  the  very  nature  of  things.  If  a  man  no  longer  con- 
seiit  to  be  guided  by  me ;  I  am  no  longer  his  guide,  I 
am  free.  If  one  will  not  guide  me  any  longer,  I  am 
free  to  seek  one  who  will."  * 

*  Stevens's  Ilislory  of  Methodism,  vol.  i,  p.  313. 


Harmony  and  Unity  to  be  Restored.  257 


That  is  it.  In  the  judgment  of  our  fathers  the 
Christian  Church  was  a  purely  voluntary  association,  in 
which  pastors  and  people  were  perfectly  free  to  follow 
their  own  convictions  as  the  loving,  devoted  servants  of 
Christ  and  of  each  other,  hut  each  in  the  functions  as- 
signed by  the  3faster.  The  governing  function  of  the  pas- 
torate was  simply  the  ministry  of  service,  not  of  domi- 
n(ttio?i.  It  implied  the  freest  and  fullest  concurrence  of 
the  laity.  And  the  specific  functions  of  the  stewards 
in  the  "  ministry  of  tables,"  or  of  temporalities,  as 
fully  implied  the  general  supervision  or  concurrence  of 
the  ministry  of  the  word. 

Here,  sir,  in  this  7)iost  fundamental  postulate  of 
Wesleyan  Church  government,  we  have  the  broad, 
deep,  and  eternally  abiding  foundations  for  our  two 
distinct  and  separate,  yet  concurring,  houses  of  the 
Church  legislature.  By  placing  the  power  of  shaping 
all  legislative  measures  of  moral  discipline  in  the 
Clerical  Senate,  on  the  one  hand,  or  of  the  bills  of 
finance — measures  on  the  temporalities  of  the  Church — 
in  the  House  of  Lay  Representatives,  on  the  other,  and 
by  giving  the  power  of  mutual  concurrence,  rejection,  or 
amendment  to  each,  we  shall  not  only  secure  precisely 
that  distribution  of  responsibilities  in  which  our  fathers 
80  religiously  believed,  but,  so  far  as  legislation  can 
do  it,  the  highest  degree  of  liberty,  safety,  peace,  pros- 
perity, and  power  for  the  whole  Church. 
17 


258     Principles  of  Church  Government. 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  CHURCH  TO  BE  EXEMPLIFIED. 
Sixth  Argument  in  the  Baltimore  Speech. 

In  conclusion,  Mr.  President,  we  beg  leave  to  show 
that  the  division  of  this  body  into  two  distinct,  separate 
and  concurrent  houses,  each  with  its  own  initiative  in 
special  measures,  will  most  fully  accord  with  tlie  struct- 
ure, specific  functions,  and  precedents  of  the  Church  of 
the  New  Testament  Scriptures,  and  thus  not  only  honor 
our  fathers,  but  Christ  and  his  apostles,  in  whom  they 
believe  as  the  founders  of  the  Church  for  all  lands  and 
all  ages. 

The  structure  of  the  New  Testament,  or  apostolic 
Church,  was  not  simply  a  mechanical  mass,  an  aggre- 
gation of  individual  Christians.  It  was  an  organism; 
a  personality;  the  living  "Body  of  Christ."  In  the 
distribution  of  specific  functions  to  particular  mem- 
bers of  this  organism,  the  triumph  of  the  division 
of  labor  principle  was  never  more  complete;  for  the 
Holy  Ghost  was  palpably,  visibly  present  in  the  Church, 
"  the  self-same  Spirit  dividing  to  every  man  severally 
as  he  will;  for  as  the  body  is  one  and  hath  many  mem- 
bers, and  all  the  members  of  tliat  one  body,  being  many, 
are  one  body,  so  also  is  Christ,"  "  God  hath  sot  the 
members  every  one  of  them  to  the  body  as  it  hath 
pleased  him."    "  Ye  are  the  body  of  Christ  and  mem- 


The  New  Testament  Church. 


259 


bers  in  particular.  And  God  hatli  set  some  in  the 
Cliurch;  first,  apostles;  secondarily,  prophets;  thirdly, 
teachers.  Are  all  apostles  ?  Are  all  prophets  ?  Are 
all  teachers?"  Again  it  is  written:  "He  gave  some, 
apostles;  and  some,  prophets;  and  some,  evangelists; 
and  some,  pastors  and  teachers ;  for  tlie  perfecting  of  the 
saints  .  .  .  for  the  edifying  of  the  body  of  Christ:  that 
we  .  .  .  may  grow  up  into  him  in  all  things,  whi(!h  is 
the  head,  even  Christ:  from  whom  the  whole  body  fitly 
joined  together  and  compacted  by  that  loJdch  every  joint 
supplieth,  according  to  the  effectual  working  in  the 
measure  of  every  part,  maketh  increase  of  the  body 
unto  the  edifying  of  itself  in  love."   Eph.  iv,  8-16. 

"  For  as  we  have  many  members  in  one  body,  and 
all  members  have  not  the  same  office,  so  we,  being  many, 
are  one  body,  and  every  one  members  one  of  another. 
Note  the  force  of  the  apostolic  logic:  "Having  then 
gifts  differing  according  to  the  grace  give^i  to  its, 
whether  prophecy,  let  us  prophecy  according  to  the 
proportion  of  faith;  or  ministry,  let  us  wait  on  our  min- 
istering; or  he  that  teacheth,  on  teaching;  or  he  that 
exhorteth,  on  exhortation:  he  that  giveth,  let  him  do  it 
with  simplicity;  he  that  ruleth  with  diligence."  Rom. 
xii,  6-8.  Nothing  here  is  generic ;  every  thing  is 
specific.  No  Jacobinic  leveling  ;  no  atheistic  com- 
munism, but  a  sublime  personality — a  mighty  moral 
organism,  the  body  of  Christ;  in  which  wondrous  syn- 
thesis of  "members  in  particular"  every  specific  func- 
tion is  to  be  performed  by  its  own  particular  organ. 

Having  established  this  fundamental  doctrine  of 
specialties  as  inherent  in  the  very  structure  of  the  primi- 


260       Principles  op  Church  Government. 


tive  Church,  we  proceed  to  sliow  that  the  specialties 
most  distinctly  and  authoritatively  demarJced  from  each 
other  in  the  administrations  of  the  early  Church  were 
pi'ecisely  those  with  which  in  this  discussion  we  have 
to  do.  All  spiritual  interests  of  the  organism  were 
grouped  together  by  apostolic  authority  and  placed 
under  the  special  "  Ministry  of  the  Word."  And  all 
secular  interests  of  the  organism,  wei"e  by  that  au- 
thority that  had  power  "  to  bind  or  loose  "  in  heaven, 
completely  set  apart  from  those  spiritual  interests  and 
placed  in  special  charge  of  the  official  laymen  of  the 
Church. 

"  One  of  the  first  acts  in  the  organization  of  the  early 
Christian  Church,"  says  the  distinguished  Dr.  Crooks, 
the  general-in-cliief  of  the  lay  movement,  "  was  the 
separation  of  the  temporal  concerns  from  the  spiritual 
work,"  quoting  in  proof  of  his  statement  a  portion  of 
the  sixth  chapter  of  Acts.*  We  beg  leave  to  quote  a 
little  more  in  full  from  this  most  interesting  chapter: 
"Then  the  twelve  called  the  multitude  of  the  disciples 
unto  them,  and  said,  It  is  not  reason  that  loe  should  leave 
the  word  of  God,  and  serve  tables.  Wherefore,  brethren, 
look  ye  out  among  you  seven  men  of  honest  report,  full 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  wisdom,  whom  we  may  appoint 
over  this  business.  But  weioillf/ive  ourselves  continually 
to  prayer,  and  to  the  ministry  of  the  word.  And  the 
saying  pleased  the  whole  multitude."  (It  was  a  popular 
doctrine  then,  and  ought  to  be  so  now.)  "And  they 
chose  Stephen,  a  man  full  of  faith  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  Philip,  and  Prochorus,  and  Nicanor,  and  Timon, 
*  Methodist,  May  1,  1875. 


The  New  Testament  Church.  261 


and  Parraenas,  and  Nicolas,  a  proselyte  of  Antiocb; 
whom  they  set  before  the  apostles:  and  when  they  had 
prayed,  they  laid  their  hands  on  them.  And  the  word 
of  God  increased;  and  the  number  of  the  disciples  mul- 
tiplied in  Jerusalem  greatly."    Acts  vi,  2-7. 

That  these  "  seven  "  were  laymen  at  the  time  of  their 
appointment  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  they  were 
7iot  of  the  number  of  those  who  said,  "  It  is  not  reason 
that  toe  should  leave  the  word  of  God  to  serve  tal)les  " 
— to  which  latter  service  the  seven  were  expressly  ap- 
pointed. 

Dr.  Whedon,  in  the  Qunrterli/  for  January,  1867,  in 
speaking  of  the  "  seven  deacons  "  in  the  Book  of  Acts, 
says,  "  They  are  never  so  called  in  the  book  itself ;"  and 
Dean  Alt'ord  says,  "The  title  of  deacons  is  nowhere  ap- 
plied to  these  seven  in  Scripture,  nor  does  the  word 
occur  in  Acts  at  all "  {in  loco). 

Wesley  says:  "Their  proper  office  Avas  to  take  care 
of  the  poor;  and  when  some  of  them  afterward  preached 
the  Gospel  they  did  it  not  by  virtue  of  their  deacon- 
ship,  but  by  another  commission — that  of  evangelists, 
Avhich  they  probably  received,  but  after  they  were  ap- 
pointed deacons;"  and  adds,  "It  is  not  unlikely  that 
f)thcrs  were  chosen  deacons  or  stewards  in  their  room" 
{in  loco).  Another  commission!''''  Wesley  regarded 
these  seven  stewards  as  divinely  "commissioned"  to 
the  department  of  temporalities  in  the  Church  of  God. 
What  else  could  be  the  meaning  of  this  solemn  ordina- 
tion served  by  apostolic  hands,  the  first  recorded  in  the 
New  Testament?  "The  powers  that  be  are  ordained 
of  God."    The  powers  of  the  people  and  of  the  raagis- 


262      Principles  op  Church  Government. 

trate  in  the  State  are  ordained  of  God.  So  in  the  or- 
ganism of  the  Church,  "The powers"  of  the  "official 
laity,  and  'the  powers^  of  the  ministry  of  the  word 
'  are  ordained  of  God.' " 

Allow  me  to  pause  just  here  a  moment  to  ascertain 
the  origin  and  significance  of  this  ordination  service. 
"  And  when  they  had  prayed,  they  laid  their  hands  on 
them  " — a  form  that  was  not  only  used  by  the  apostles 
in  the  appointment  of  these  official  laymen  to  the  re- 
sponsible charge  of  the  temporal  interests  in  the  Cliurch, 
but  also  in  the  appointment  of  the  ministers  of  the 
word  to  the  spiritual  oversight  of  the  Church.  It  also 
was  ordered  or  ordained  of  God.  It  was  not  from  "  the 
provincial  customs  of  the  Jews ; "  it  was  "  instituted 
long  before  the  Jews  reached  their  provinces;"  not 
from  "  the  ceremonials  of  the  synagogue  ; "  it  was  be- 
fore the  synagogue  was.  It  was  "  comrnti/idecP''  on  the 
day  that  Moses,  knowing  that  he  was  soon  to  go  hence, 
besought:  Lot  the  Lord,  the  God  of  the  spirits  of  all 
flesh,  set  a  man  over  the  congregation,  who  may  go  in 
and  out  before  them,  and  who  may  lead  them  out  and 
bring  them  in,  that  the  congregation  of  the  Lord  be 
not  as  sheep  which  have  no  shepherd.  And  the  Lord 
said  unto  Moses,  Take  thee  Joshua  the  son  of  Nun,  a 
man  in  whom  is  the  spirit,  and  lay  thine  hand  upon 
him;  and  set  him  before  Eleazar,  the  priest,  and  before 
all  the  congregation;  and  give  him  a  charge  in  their 
sight.  And  thou  shalt  put  some  of  thine  honor  (literally, 
aitthoriti/)  upon  him,  that  all  the  congregation  may  be 
oUediont.  And  he  shall  stanrt  before  Eleazar  the  priest, 
Avho  shall  ask  counsel  for  him  (Joshua)  after  the  judg- 


The  Ne\v  Testament  Church.  263 


ment  of  Urim  before  the  Lord.  At  his  word  (the  word 
of  the  Lord  revealed  through  the  priest)  shall  thej  go 
out,  and  at  his  word  shall  they  come  in,  both  he  (Joshua) 
and  all  the  children  of  Israel,  even  all  the  congregation. 
And  Moses  did  as  the  Lord  commanded  him.  And  he 
took  Joshua  and  set  him  before  the  congregation,  and 
he  laid  his  hands  upon  him,  as  the  Lord  commanded  by 
the  hands  of  Moses.    Num.  xxvii,  16-23. 

Here  we  have,  cleaving  like  a  bolt  of  lightning  the 
clouds  and  fog-banks  of  modern  "exposition,"  the 
sharp,  clear,  and  incisive  statement  of  the  divi7ie  origin 
and  God-given  significance  of  this  most  impressive  ordi- 
nation service — the  conveyance  of  author  it  i/  derioed from 
God,  by  the  scriptural  rulers  of  the  Church,  to  their  success- 
ors through  the  laying  on  of  hands  and  the  concurrence 
of  the  xohole  congregation.  As  Moses,  himself  directly 
called  of  (jod,  ordained  his  successor  by  divine  com- 
mand, conveyed  to  him  the  authority  he  himself  had 
derived  immediately  from  God,  so  the  "  twelve,"  directly 
commissioned  by  the  great  Head  of  the  Church  to  bind 
or  loose  on  earth  and  in  heaven,  conveyed  through  this 
divinely  instituted  cerem  jnial,  to  their  successors  in 
the  specific  offices  which  God  had  set  by  them  in  the 
Church,  the  authority  which  they  had  immediately 
derived  from  Christ. 

The  authority  in  the  temporalities  of  the  Church  tlie 
divinely  inspired  apostles  conveyed  in  this  most  solemn, 
impressive,  and  divinely  authorized  ceremonial  to  the 
seven  official  laymen,  laymen  elected  by  "  the  multitude 
of  the  discijiles,"  and  set  apart  from  the  ministers  of 
the  word  by  apostolic  hands  as  a  distifict  and  separate 


264      Principles  of  Church  Government, 


bureau  or  department  of  finance  and  tempoi-alities  in 
tlie  Church  of  God. 

And,  sir,  as  these  inspired  men  declare  that  this  dis- 
tinction and  separation  of  temporalities  from  the  minis- 
trations of  the  word  ai  e  grounded  on  the  principles  of 
'•  reason  " — of  absolute  and  eternal  reason — we  can  but 
regard  their  authoritative  charge  as  obligatory  upon 
the  chosen  representatives  of  the  laity  so  long  as  there 
are  in  the  Church  of  God  secular  interests  demanding 
attention,  in  distinction  from  those  spiritual  concerns 
especially  committed  to  the  ministry  of  the  word. 
And,  so  long  as  these  secular  interests  remain  in  the 
organism,  just  so  long  will  the  authority  of  the  word 
and  of  external  reason  "order"  that  laymen  shall 
take  responsible  charge  of  the  ministrations  of  finance 
in  every  society,  in  every  Annual  Conference,  in 
every  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  and  in  every  society  and  every  assembly  of 
every  Church  on  the  planet  under  the  authority  of 
Christ. 

Tliat  the  ministry  of  the  word  was  set  apart  by 
divine  authority,  through  this  divinely  instituted  form, 
to  the  distinct  and  separate  work  of  teaching  and  gov- 
erning in  the  Church,  no  critical  scholar  of  the  New 
Testament  could  ever  successfully  deny. 

"  The  Holy  Ghost  said.  Separate  me  Barnabas  and 
S.iul  for  the  work  whereunto  I  have  called  them.  And 
wiien  they  had  fasted  and  prayed,  and  laid  their  hands 
upon  them,  they  sent  them  awMy.  So  they,  being  sent 
forth  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  departed,"  not  upon  an  apos- 
tolic, but  an  episcopal  tour,  "prearhing  the  Word" — 


The  New  Testament  Church. 


265 


"confirming  the  souls  of  llie  disciples,"  and  "ordaining 
(c/ieirotonia)  tlicni  elders  in  every  Chui-ch."  Acts  xiv, 
22,  23. 

As  to  tlie  form  of  this  ordination,  Clarke  says:  "I 
believe  the  simple  truth  to  be  this,  that  in  ancient  times 
the  people  chose  by  the  cheirotonia  (lifting  up  of  hands) 
their  spiritual  pastor;  and  the  rulers  of  the  Church, 
whether  apostles  or  others,  appointed  that  person  to 
his  office  by  the  cheirothesia,  or  imposition  of  hands" 
{in  loco). 

Allow  us  now  to  inquire  as  to  the  nature  and  extent 
of  this  authority  thus  conveyed  to  pastors  elected  by  the 
people  to  an  office  ordained  of  God.  Is  it  simply  exec- 
utive ?    What  is  commanded  in  God's  word  ? 

1.  That  the  pastoral  ministry,  known  indiscriminately 
as  pastors,  teachers,  bishops,  or  presbyters,  etc.,  shall 
take  the  general  oversight  of  the  whole  Church,  which 
oversight  is  to  extend  to  temporalities  only  so  far  as 
relates  to  the  "appointment"  of  devout  and  competent 
laymen,  elected  by  the  Church  to  take  responsible  charge 
of  that  "business,"  while  they  themselves  are  to  give 
themselves  to  prayer  and  to  things  pertaining  to  the 
"ministry  of  the  word." 

Peter,  to  Avhom  "the  keys  of  doctrine  and  discipline  " 
were  especially  given,  writes  :  "  The  elders  which  are 
among  you  I  exhort,  who  also  am  an  elder,  and  a  wit- 
ness of  the  sufferings  of  Christ.  Feed  the  flock  of  God 
which  is  among  you,  .  .  .  taking  tlie  oversight  thereof." 
1  Pet.  v,  1,  2. 

The  Avord  rendered  "feed,"  and  afterward  explained 
as  "taking  the  oversight,"  is -n-oijiavarE  {poimanate)  a 


266       Principles  of  Church  Government. 


form  of  the  verb  noLfiaivu)  {po'unaino) ,  the  same  term 
employed  by  tlie  Saviour  in  his  address  to  Peter  and 
the  apostles  when  he  said  in  most  positive  command- 
ment, "Feed  {notnatve,  poimaine)  my  sheep."  John 
xxi,  16.  What  is  the  signification  of  the  term?  Does 
it  mean  that  a  ])astor,  a  shepherd,  is  simply  the  execu- 
tive officer  of  his  flock,  their  creature,  to  do  their  bid- 
ding? Its  use  in  the  sacred  Scriptures  themselves 
shall  determine  this  for  us.  It  occurs  eleven  times  in 
the  New  Testament,  but  only  once  with  its  literal 
meaning,  "a  servant  feeding  cattle."  Five  times  it 
signifies  the  rule  of  Christ  in  the  world,  in  such  texts 
as,  "  Out  of  thee  shall  come  a  Governor,  that  shall  rule 
(TToiixavel,  poimaiiei)  my  people  Israel "  (Matt,  ii,  6)  ; 
"  He  shall  rule  (noifiavel,  jwi/nanei)  them  "  (all  nations), 
etc.  Rev.  xix,  i5.  Four  time-  it  is  applied  to  the  pas- 
toial  office,  in  such  texts  as  Christ's  charge  to  Petei', 
"Feed  {froiimive,  jwimaine)  my  sheep;"  and  in  Peter's 
charge  to  the  elders,  "  Feed  (noifiavaTE,  poimanate)  the 
flock  of  God,  .  .  .  taking  the  oversight  thereof;"  and 
Paul's  charge  to  the  elders  at  IMiletus,  "Take  heed 
therefore  unto  yourselves,  and  to  all  the  flock,  over  the 
which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you  overseers, 
to  feed  {TToinaLVEiv,  poimainein)  the  Church  of  God," 
etc.  Acts  XX,  28.  Simply  an  " executive  officer"  of 
the  flock  of  Christ !  As  reasonably  say  that  the 
aQx^^'^oinevog  (arc/iipoime)Ws),  or  "chief  Shepherd," 
"  head  over  all  things  to  the  Cliurch,"  was  simply  the 
"chief  executive."  In  Heb.  xiii,  20,  he  is  called  "the 
great  Shepherd  [-no'iiieva,  poimetia)  of  the  sheep."  In 
1  Pet.  ii,  25,  "  The  Shepherd  (rroZ/tera,  poimena)  and 


The  New  Testament  Church. 


LG7 


Bishop  of  your  souls."  And  yet  this  is  the  idetiticul 
terra  employed  by  the  Scriptures  in  relation  to  pastors. 
"And  he  gave  some  pastors  (nocnevag,  poimciias)  and 
teachers."  Who  can  prove  that  these  Troifievsg  (jyoi- 
■menes)  were  not  the  "masters  of  assemblies  given  from 
one  shepherd"  (noifjLeva,  polinena)?  Eccl.  xii,  11. 

Again,  look  at  the  term  TrQoiarrjfii  {2^>'oistam{) ,  to  go 
before,  to  direct,  to  rule,  to  govern.  It  is  applied  in 
several  instances  to  parental  or  family  government. 
"  A  bishop  must  be  blameless,  .  .  .  one  that  ruleth 
{rrgoiaTdiievov,  jyroistamenon)  weW  his  own  house,  hav- 
ing his  children  in  subjection  under  him  ;  for  if  a  man 
know  not  how  to  rule  {nQoarrjvai,  prostanai)  his  own 
house,  how  shall  he  take  care  of  the  church  of  God  ?  " 
1  Tim.  iii,  2,  4,  5.  And  again,  of  the  deacons,  in 
verse  12,  "Ruling  {TTpoiaraiievot ,  proistanieiioi)  their 
children  and  their  own  houses  well."  Does  parental 
government  imply  executive  power  alone?  And  yet 
this  term,  7rgoiaTi]iu  [proistand],  is  precisely  the  oi:e 
selected  by  the  Holy  Gliost  to  set  forth  the  rule  of  the 
npeafivTepoi  ['presbnteroi)  :  "  Know  them  which  labor 
among  you  and  are  over  you  {TvpoiaTanevovg,  proistaiue- 
nous)  in  the  Lord."  1  Thess.  v,  12.  "Let  the  elders 
that  rule  {ngoeaTUTeg,  proestotes)  well  be  counted  wor- 
thy of  double  honor,  especially  (fid^iara,  malista,  most 
of  (ill)  they  who  labor  (KOTrtoivre^-,  A:opiontes)  from  Komdw 
{kopiao),  to  be  tired,  to  gi-ow  Aveary,  to  work  hard,  to 
toil  in  word  and  doctrine."*  1  Tim.  v,  17.    "He  that 

*  Dr.  Stron":,  in  liis  invaluable  Eiicvclopsedia  (art.  "Elder"),  says: 
"For  a  luminous  statement  of  the  whole  siibjeci  of /a?/  eMershi]^,  with 
a  conclusive  proof  iliat  there  is  no  trace  of  it  in  the  New  Testament 


268      Pbincipf,es  op  Church  Government. 


ruleth  {npoiaTanevog,  proistamenos)  with  diligence." 
Rom.  xii,  8.  In  the  presence  of  such  scriptural  defini- 
tions of  the  term,  wliat  warrant  has  any  man  for  saying 
that  this  "ruling  "  {ngo'taTafievot,  proistamenoi)  involves 
simply  the  executive  function,  excluding  the  making  of 
"  needful  rules  and  regulations"  for  the  government  of 
the  Cluirch  of  God  ?  The  term  agouDienoi  is  also  sug- 
gestive. 

2.  Obedience  on  the  part  of  the  laity  of  the  Church 
is  commanded  to  these  pastoral  rulers  {rj-yoviievoi,  agon- 
meiioi)  in  the  name  of  God.  What  are  they  ?  Simply 
the  executive,  to  do  the  will  of  the  people  ?  Tlien  the 
command  should  have  reversed  the  terms,  so  as  to  read, 
"  Pastors,  obey  your  people  in  all  things,  for  majorities 
are  to  you  in  place  of  the  word."  "Pastors,  obey 
them  that  have  the  rule  over  you,"  for  they  are  the 
source  of  authority,  the  origin  of  power  in  the  Church 
of  God.  Scarcely  good  Scripture,  however  flattering 
to  democratic  pride.  Wliat  are  the  rjyoviievo't  {agou- 
menoi)  of  Scripture  ?  "  Out  of  thee  shall  come  a  Gov- 
ernor (rjyovfievog,  (igouineiios),  that  shall  rule  my  pople 
Israel."  jNIatt.  ii,  6.  "  He  made  him  governor  {rj-yov- 
fiEvov,  agoitmenon)  over  Egypt  and  all  liis  house." 
Acts  vii,  10.  Simply  an  executive?  "And  Pharaoh 
said  unto  Joseph,  Forasmuch  as  God  hath  showed 
thee  all  this,  there  is  none  so  discreet  and  wise  as 
thou  art  :  thou  slialt  be  over  my  house,  and  accord- 
i)ig  unto  thy  word  (the  legislative)  shall  all  ray 
people  be  ruled  :  only  in  the  throne  (power)  will  I  be 

see  Dr.  Hitchcock's  art.,  Pr&'ihylenan  Review,  1868."  See,  also, 
Dexter  on  Congregationalism,  pp.  110-120. 


The  Neav  Testament  Church.  269 


greater  lliaTi  thou.  .  .  .  Without  thee  shall  no  man  lift 
up  hand  or  foot  in  all  the  land  of  Egypt."  Gen.  xli,  39, 
40,  44. 

Now,  when  applied  to  pastors,  who  has  the  scriptural 
warrant  to  say  that  tlie  term  is  restricted  solely  to  ex- 
ecutive functions  in  carrying  out  the  will  of  majorities  ? 
"Remember  them  which  have  the  rule  over  you  (?^yoi;- 
fievuv,  acjoumenon),  who  have  spoken  unto  you  the  word 
of  God."  Heb.  xiii,  7.  "Obey  them  that  have  the 
rule  over  you  {rfyovfievoiq,  agownenois),  and  submit 
yourselves  :  for  they  watch  for  your  souls,  as  tliey  that 
must  give  account.''''  Verse  17.  "His  blood  loill  I 
require  at  the  watchmaii's  hand.  So  thou,  O  son  of 
man,  I  have  set  thee  a  watchman  unto  the  house  of 
Israel."  Ezck.  xxxiii,  6,  7.  "  Woe  be  to  the  shepherds 
of  Israel.  ...  O  ye  shei)herds,  hear  the  word  of  the 
Lord.  .  .  .  Behold,  I  am  against  the  shepherds  ;  and  / 
loill  require  my  flock  at  their  hand.''''  Ezek.  xxxiv, 
2,  9,  10. 

Is  it  possible  that  God  could  call  men  to  stand  so 
close  to  a  woe  of  failure  that  darkens  an  eternity,  and 
at  the  same  time  allow  a  majority  of  the  flock  for 
which  he  is  held  responsible  to  overrule  his  conscience 
and  judgment  as  to  the  best  ways  and  means  for  secur- 
ing their  spiritual  and  eternal  well-being  ?  Is  it  possi- 
ble that  the  laity  of  any  Church  should  be  so  frenzied, 
so  intoxicated  with  the  love  of  power,  so  heartless,  as 
to  send  a  man  up  to  a  position  of  such  responsib'ditits — 
a  position  around  which  the  heaviest  stnnn-elouds  of 
the  divine  fury  are  shaken  out,  and  yet  so  bind  him 
with  the  withes  of  majorities  that  he  should  not  be  free 


270 


Principles  of  Church  Government. 


to  meet  these  responsibilities  ?  As  surely  as  there  is  a 
divine  call  to  the  Christian  ministry  to  take  responsible 
charge  of  the  flock  of  Christ,  so  certainly  do  reason, 
conscience,  and  the  word  of  God  agree  in  laying  upon 
tliat  ministry  especial  responsibility  in  shaping  the 
legislation  of  the  Church  in  relation  to  those  interests 
for  Avhich  pastors  must  especially  answer,  on  pain  of 
eternal  death. 

As  a  bar  to  this  scriptural  logic,  it  is  asserted  that 
the  precedent  of  the  first  council  is  directly  against  it ; 
that  the  laity  sat  and  deliberated  with  the  apostles 
and  elders  without  distinction  or  demarkation  of 
powers;  enacting  and  signing  the  first  ecclesiastical 
decrees  touching  the  doctrines  and  moral  discipline 
of  the  Church  as  one  body.  It  is  claimed  that  "the 
laity,  as  the  underwriters  of  these  decrees,  were  in  the 
bond." 

As  that  first  council  of  the  Church  was  summoned 
and  presided  over  by  the  inspired  apostles  and  as  a 
precedent  must  be  binding  in  every  principle  illustrated 
by  it  upon  all  in  the  same  circumstances  for  all  time, 
the  objection  is  entitled  to  the  most  candid  and  careful 
consideration.  The  accepted  version,*  we  are  sorry  to 
say,  makes  a  point  against  us  ;  sorry  not  only  because 
it  contradicts  the  context,  but  because  it  has  dark- 
ened a  very  clear  case  and  led  some  of  the  very  best 

*  The  Revised  Version,  wliicli  wns  not  issued  when  Dr.  Perrine  de- 
livered tliis  speech,  reads  as  follows:  "  And  tiiey  wrote  tlim  by  thera. 
The  apostles  and  the  elder  brethren  unto  the  brethren  whicli  are  of 
the  Gentiles  in  Antioeh  and  Syria  and  Cilicia,  greeting,"  etc.  Acts 
XV,  23.— Editor. 


The  New  Testament  Ciiuucii. 


271 


of  men  astray.  An  examination  of  the  original  Greek 
text,  however,  will  correct  all  misapprehensions  and 
lead  us  to  the  mind  of  the  Spirit,  to  the  autlioritative 
word. 

In  our  version  Acts  xv,  23,  reads  as  follows:  "And 
tl)ey  wrote  letters  by  them  after  tliis  manner  ;  The 
apostles  {ol  dnoaroXoi,  hoi  apostoloi)  and  elders  (xat 
01  TTQea(3vTeQoi,  kai  hoi  presbateroi)  and  brethren  (/cat  ol 
a8eX(f>ol,  kai  hoi  adelplioi)  send  greeting,"  etc. 

But  Griesbach  marks  this  last  Kai  ol  in  his  critique 
upon  the  text  as  "doubtful."  Lachman  throws  it  out 
altogether.  Irenaeus,  in  quoting  the  text  in  the  second 
century,  omits  it,  making  brethren,  of  course,  in  appo- 
sition with  TTgea^ivTEgot  (presbiiteroi),  or  elders.  Dean 
Alford,  in  his  great  work  on  the  Greek  Testament,  in 
three  volumes,  says:  " The  received  version  inserts  Kai 
ol  (kai  hoi)  before  ddeA^ot  [adelphoi) ;  with  the  Codex 
Basiliensis  of  the  eighth  century.  Codex  Wolfir  of  the 
ninth  century.  Codex  Regis  Parisiensis  of  the  eighth 
century;  also  in  the  latest  so-called  corrections  of  the 
Sinaiticus,  as  Tischendorf  says,  some  centuries  later 
than  the  original  scribe."  .  .  .  But  the  Kai  ol  (kai  hoi) 
is  omitted  by  the  Codex  Alexandrinus  of  the  fifth 
century.  Codex  Vaticanus  of  the  fourth  century.  Co- 
dex Ephaemi,  "  the  purest  example  of  the  Alexandrine 
text,"  of  the  fifth  century.  Codex  Bezae  of  the  fifth 
or  sixth  century,  and  Codex  Sinaiticus  of  the  fourth 
century. 

Tischendorf,  in  his  English  Testament,  says  in  a  foot- 
note: "The  Sinaitic,  Vatican,  and  Alexandrine  MSS. 
oi7iit  "  and  "  (xat  ol)  before  "  brethren."    And  to  indi- 


272       Principles  of  Church  Government. 


cate  the  value  of  these  three  MSS.  says:  "  These  three 
Mas.  undoubtedly  stand  at  the  head  of  all  the  ancient 
copies  of  the  JVeto  Testament,  and  it  is  by  their  standard 
that  both  the  early  editions  of  the  Greek  text  and  modern 
versions  are  to  he  compared  and  corrected^  So  Alford, 
in  his  English  Testament,  correctly  and  appropriately 
gives  the  exact  and  literal  rendering  as  follows:  "And 
they  wrote  letters  by  them  after  this  manner,  The 
apostles  and  brethren  which  are  elders  send  greeting 
unto  the  brethren  which  are  of  the  Gentiles  in  Antioch 
and  Syria  and  Cilicia."  Alford  also  says  in  his  notes  to 
the  Greek  text:  "The  omission  of  Koi  o'l  before  ddeX(j)ot, 
{((delphoi),  as  in  all  the  first  MSS.,  as  Neander  observes, 
can  hardly  have  been  occasioned  by  hierarchical  consid- 
erations, seeing  it  occurs  as  early  as  Irenseus,  and  that 
it  would  be  equally  strong  against  hierarchical  views 
to  call  the  presbyters  adelphoi,  or  brethren."  We  like 
that.  We  believe  that  the  presbyters  are  of  the  people, 
and  with  the  people,  and  for  the  people,  but  with  their 
special  responsibilities.  Now  glance  through  the  whole 
narrative  and  note  how  perfectly  this  original  text  har- 
monizes with  the  context  throughout. 

1.  To  whom  was  this  appeal  from  Antioch  made? 
Verse  2  answers,  "Unto  the  apostles  and  elders"  at 
Jerusalem. 

2.  Who  came  together  to  hear  the  appeal  ?  Verse  6 
says:  "And  the  apostles  and  elders  came  together  for 
to  consider  of  this  matter." 

3.  Who  ordained  the  de  rees  ?  Verse  4  of  the  next 
chapter  answers:  "And  as  they  went  through  the  cities 
they  delivered  them  the  decrees  for  to  keep  that  were 


The  New  Testament  Church.  273 


ordained  of  the  apostles  and  elders  which  were  at  Jeru- 
salem." 

"W^ho  signed  the  decrees  ?  The  first  exegetical  schol- 
ars and  aniiotators  of  the  age  answer:  "The  apostles 
an<l  brethren  which  are  elders.'''' 

Now,  sir,  although  the  laity  in  great  numbers  may 
have  tilled  every  gallery  and  cori  idor  of  that  council 
chamber,  as  they  do  here,  with  deeply  interested  lis- 
teners, and  although  some  of  "  the  sect  of  the  Pharisees 
that  believed  "  appeared  before  the  council  to  urge,  as 
accusers  or  ajjpellants,  their  Jewish  prejudices,  yet,  sir, 
it  is  in  clearest  evidence  that  during  the  entire  time 
occupied  in  the  discussion,  enactment,  and  signing  of 
these  decrees,  the  laity  were  in  reality  without  the  bar 
of  the  clerical  body,  practically  a  distinct  and  separate 
house 

But,  sir,  no  sooner  has  the  clerical  house,  or  body  of 
men  ujion  whom  the  Holy  Ghost  had  laid  this  esjMcial 
respoiisibiliti/,  taken  action,  determining  in  the  field  of 
doctrine  and  moral  discipline  what  ought  to  be  done, 
than  we  find  the  laity,  at  least  by  implication,  not  only 
concurring  with  the  legislative  action  of  tlie  clerical 
body  by  providing  the  necessary  "ways  and  means," 
but  we  find  them  heartily  uniting  with  the  apostles 
and  elders  in  carrying  the  decrees  into  effect.  "Then 
pleased  it  the  apostles  and  elders  with  the  whole  Church 
to  send  chosen  men  of  their  own  company  to  Antioch." 
Verse  22.  A  purely  administrative  act,  implying, 
of  course,  the  concurrence  of  all  the  constitutional  ele- 
ments, the  distinctive,  yet  harmonious  members  of 
"  the  one  body  "  of  Christ. 
18 


27i       Principles  op  Church  Goverxment. 


Thu?,  sir,  in  this  brief  study  of  the  first  great  council 
of  the  Church,  convened  by  inspired  authority,  we  find 
at  least  the  typical  germs  of  that  legislative  science 
which,  growing  up  in  the  unfolding  wisdom  of  the 
ages,  stands  at  length  in  the  two  perfectly  distinct, 
separate,  and  concurrent  houses  of  the  modern  legisla- 
ture, not  only  as  a  monument  of  the  world's  experience 
— that  experience  which  corrects  the  errors  of  mere 
theory,  and  at  once  illustrates  and  enforces  the  eternal 
judgments  of  nature,  but,  sir,  a  monument  as  well  to 
the  wisdom  of  Ilim  whom  we  most  devoutly  believe  to 
be  worthy  to  be  "  head  over  all  things  to  the  Church," 
even  in  Church  government. 


Editor's  Note. 

The  foregoing  speech  by  Pr.  Perrine  produced  a  profound  impres- 
sion upon  tlio  minds  of  its  readers.  Many  Ic.iding  members  of  the 
General  Conference  gave  it  e:ireful  itttenlion,  .-uid  were  convinced  tliat 
it  outUned  the  safest  pciliey  fur  tlie  Cliurcli  lo  )  nrsuc.  Bishop  Ames 
said  to  Drs.  G.  15.  Jocrlyn  and  D  l'\  Banie-:  "  Perrine  has  done  the 
best  tiling  of  llio  (Jenpral  Conference  so  fai'.  liis  theory  of  tlie  con- 
stitution is  histnTieally  and  pliilosophically  cin'rcct."  Judge  G.  G. 
Reynolds  said  :  •'  I  have  just  fuiished  rcadiiii;  y<iui-  speech  ;  it  is  mag- 
niticetit,  and  I  thiidt  I  can  say  I  iudor-e  cmm  v  in  it."  Dr. 

J.  M.  Buckley  said:  "  Terriue,  T  have  n-ad  every  word:  I  believe 
every  word  of  it;  you  have  the  facts  and  prineiples."  General 
Clinton  B.  Fisk,  in  a  note  dated  Baltimore,  May  27,  1876,  said:  "I 
wish  to  thank  you  ag.ain  for  your  able  defense  of  the  liberties  of  the 
Ciuireh."  G.  .7.  Ferry,  chairman  of  the  Conniiillee  on  Lay  Delega- 
tion, said:  "Peri'ine,  yon  are  riglit;  you  are  going  to  succeed;  the 
best  men  in  the  Church  are  with  you."  Another  delegate  said: 
"That  speech  will  shape  the  Church  of  the  fntiu-e."  One  of  the 
bi.shops  declared,  "It  is  much  easier  to  speak  slightingly  of  Perrine 


The  New  Testament  Chubcu.  275 


than  to  answer  liim."  A  distinguished  General  Conference  officer 
affirmed  that  "  Perrine  stock  is  coming  up;  all  over  the  country  the 
first  men  in  the  Church  are  with  him."  The  late  Dr.  E.  Wentvvorth 
gave  this  encouraging  word :  "  You  are  making  progress.  It  took 
Wilberforce  thirty  years  to  convert  the  British  Parliament."  A  great 
many  other  opinions  of  like  import  could  be  quoted.  The  Mdhodibt 
of  May  13,  1876,  observed:  "On  the  lirst  day  of  the  session  Dr.  W. 
H.  Perrine,  of  Michigan,  obtained  the  ear  of  the  General  Conference 
for  his  resolution  to  divide  that  body  into  two  houses.  The  main 
line  of  argument  in  his  speecli  is  that  such  division  is  a  necessary 
safeguard  of  liberty.  In  print,  in  the  Daily  Advocate,  his  speech  is 
bright,  wiity,  and  strong.  His  quotations  from  the  writers  of  the 
Church  setting  up  the  doctrine  of  supreme  and  practically  unlimited 
powers  in  the  General  Conference  were  well  taken,  and  his  allusion 
to  '  this  bridge  of  fog  over  which  the  whole  lay  representation  move- 
ment passed,'  makes  a  striking  conclusion  to  the  quotations."  The 
Michigan  Christian  Advocate,  after  expressing  regret  for  inability  to 
publish  the  speech  entire,  said :  "  It  was  an  able  argument  upon  the 
necessity  of  guarding  constitutional  rights  against  the  aggressions  of 
legislative  assumption,  an  object  which  he  sought  to  accomplish  by 
the  division  of  the  General  Conference  into  two  branches,  lay  and  cleri- 
cal." Rev.  F.  M.  Searles,  of  Ohio,  writing  to  a  member  of  the  Mich- 
igan Conference  in  1879,  said:  "Dr.  Perrine's  speech  at  the  last 
General  Conference  impressed  me  deeply.  I  hope  his  views  may 
prevail,  and  that  he  may  have  the  op  ortimity  of  being  heard  again 
at  the  next  General  Conference."  Rev.  George  B.  Fairhead,  of  New 
York,  also  wrote:  •'!  have  just  finished  a  roperusal  of  Dr.  Perrine's 
arguments  on  the  two  houses.  His  arguments  are  solid  rock  of  the 
granite  order.  He  has  made  a  masterly  presentation  of  the  question 
of  Chiircli  government,  such  as  I  have  never  before  seen  equaled. 
His  arguments  compel  deliberation,  and  force  on  the  judgment  the 
conviction  that  he  is  unanswerable."  A  leading  thinker  and  speaker 
in  several  General  Conferences  expressed  himself  as  follows:  "I  es- 
teem Dr.  Perrine  highly,  and  believe  him  to  be  a  man  of  great  ability 
and  unusual  acquirements.  On  the  fundamental  importance  of  the 
two-house  idea  I  entirely  agree  with  him,  and  believe  the  Church 


276      Principles  of  Chuech  Government. 


will  some  day  see  the  wisdom  of  it.  .  .  .  M}'  opinion  is  that  at  the 
end  of  the  last  General  Confeience  he  was  generally  conceded  to  be 
an  able  and  learned  man  whob<e  words  were  weighty.  I  tliink  him  a 
man  to  be  adhered  to,  and  if  I  were  a  member  of  your  Conference  I 
should  vote  for  liini  for  the  third  term."  It  is  scarcely  necessary  to 
add  that  the  "third  term"  was  given  to  him  by  the  suffrages  of  a 
majority  of  his  brethren. 


General  Confeeexce  Re-organization.  277 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 

GENERAL  CONFERENCE  RE-ORGANIZATION. 
Con.a2peti"£ttiv©  Ta.'toles. 


OlSTE    OK    TWO  HOTJSKS. 

Fact  is  of  more  value  ilian  fiction.  Faithfuluess  13  better  than 
flattery,  and  self-knowledge  tlian  self-complaceiiuy.  A  great  Church, 
like  a  great  soul,  can  afford  to  be  severe  only  with  itself.  "  We 
began,"  says  John  Wesley,  "  by  denouncing  ourselves."  It  can  afford 
to  be  more  than  inflexibly  just;  it  may  be  chivalrously  generous  in 
its  relations  to  others.  It  cannot  afford  to  be  slow  to  acknowledge 
merit  or  to  emulate  excellence  wherever  found.  Believing  tliat  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  has  no  interest  incompatible  with  the 
fullest  exhibit  of  facts  in  the  broad  field  of  comparative  ecclesiasticism, 
and  especially  that  no  intellifrent  lover  of  our  Zion  could  consent  that 
in  any  department  of  church  interest  pa-ftction  of  methods  should 
long  be  found  only  outside  of  "Methodism,"  we  have  ventured 
upon  a  comp-irison,  not  altogether  in  our  f:ivor,  lietween  the  two 
le;islative  systems  of  the  two  leading  episcopalian  Clnirclics  in 
America — between  the  Oeneral  Conference  of  ilie  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  and  the  General  Convention  of  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church. 

That  the  relative  merits  of  the  One  and  the  Two  House  Systems 
may  be  the  more  clearly  seen  and  forcibly  felt,  we  shall  arrange  their 
respective  facts  in  parallel  columns  side  by  side. 


278      Principles  of  Church  Government. 


EXHIBIT  No.  1. 

Name,  Place,  Date,  and  Length  of  Session. 

THE  TRIENNIAL  SESSION 


THE   QUADRENNIAL  SESSION 

General  Conference 
Methodist  Episcopal  Ciiurch, 

BALTIMORE,  Md., 

From  May  1  to  May  31,  1870. 
(ExclusivH  of  Sundays  ) 

27  ID^^S. 


General  Convention 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church, 

BOSTON,  Mass., 

From  Ori.  3  to  Oct.  25,  1S77. 

(Exclusive  of  Sundays.) 

20  iD^-srs. 


EXHIBIT  No.  2. 


Constitution 
The  General  Conference 

Is  composed  of  a  Single  House,  in  which 
Ministerial  and  Lay  Delegates  sit  and 
deliherate  together  as  one  body  and 
vote  together  or  separately  according 
to  the  option  of  either  order. 


The  General  Convention 

is  composed  of  Two  Distinct,  Separate, 
and  Concurrent  Houses:  a  House  of 
Bishops,  deliberating  and  voting  by  it- 
self, and  ii  House  of  l)e|iu(  ies,  in  which 
Clerical  ami  Lay  Dcpmics  sit  and  de- 
liberaic  toiiciliiT  ami  witr  ingetheror 
separately  acrm diii^'  t(.  iln'  option  of 
either  order. 

Clerical  Deputies   182 

Lay  Deputies   1«8 


EXHIBIT  No.  3. 

First  Approximate  Test  of  the  amount  of  Work  Done  in  each  House 


The  Proceedings  of  the 
General  Conference,  as  pub- 
lished in  the  columns  of  the 

Daily  Christian  Advocate, 


271,418  VVURDS. 


respectively. 

The  Proceedings  of  the 
Hou=e  of  Deputies,  as  pub- 
lished in  the  columns  of  the 

Daily  Churchman, 

exclusive  of  Fraternal  Ad- 
dres';es : 

500,.S95  WORDS. 


EXHIBIT  No.  4. 

Note.— In  the  table  helow,  the  phrase  "  to  act "  is  distinguished  from  that  of 
"to  enact"  as  scaffolding  is  from  an  edifice  in  building.  "To  act"  relates 
exclusively  to  the  tcmpwary  agencies,  methods,  interests,  or  convenience  of 
the  acting  body  itself,  such  as  the  admission  of  members  to  seats,  granting 
leave  of  absence,  the  appointment  or  instruction  of  committees,  votes  of  thanks. 


General  Conference  Re-organization.  279 

etc. ;  wliile,  on  the  other  hand,  "  lo  enact "  relates  exclusively  to  permanent 
legislation  for  the  whole  Church. 


FCRTHER  APPROXIMATE  TESTS  OP  THE  AMOC.NT  OF  WORK  DONE, 


An  AnalyMs  of  Ihc  Doings  of  Each  House  accnrdiiig  to  the  Official  Journals 
and  Dailiea  respectively. 


To  Act: 

Motions  to  act  temporarily  for  the  acting  hody  itself 

Resolutions "  "    "  adopted 

Reports  to  act  from  standing  committees  adopted  

"       "   special  "  "   

Whole  No.  of  forms  "to  act''  for  the  body  acting  adopt'c 
To  Enact: 

Motions  to  enact  permanently  for  the  good  of  the 
whole  Church  

r.esoluiions  to  cnacl  p,  nnaiicntly  fm  tlic  frood  of  the 
whole  Churcli  ad^iaed  

Rcportji  to  enact  frmii  ^t;llKliIl^r  (■oiiiLiitifcs  adopted. . 

"  adverse  to  enactment  from  stand'g  com.  adopt'd 
"         "  '■  "   special    "  " 

Whole  No.  forms  "to  enact"  for  the  whole  Church  " 

iNCinENTAL  AND  PRl V Il.KGKI)  : 

Motions  to  make  special  (urtiT  

"      "  suspend  liic  rules  

"      "  approve  tlie  luiiiules  

"  adjourn  

SuPSiniARY: 

Motions  to  lie  on  the  tahle  

"  put  the  previous  iinesticjn  

"      "  postpone  to  a  certain  day  

"      "  commit  or  "  refer  

"      "  amend  

"      "  postpone  indeflnitely  

MifJCELLANEOrS: 

Motions  to  take  up  from  the  table  

"      "  reconsider  

"      "  recommit  

Spfciai.: 

Motions  to  concur  

"  mn-conciir  

Mcssajres  seni   

Reports,  MK\if)i!i.M,s,  kto.':' 
Memorials  "  referred  "  hy  motion  or  "  under  the  rules' 
Resolutions      "         '•      "      "  " 

Reports  "  referred  "  to  other  committees  

Whole  No.  of  reports  received  from  committees  

"        "      "      acted  upon  or  accepted  as  flnal. . 
"        "       "     from  standing  committees  not 
 acted  upon  or  suppressed  


TUESDAY,  MAT 


Monday.  Mat 


Days  of  Month. 


015  O   ^  o 


11- 


Thursday,  Oct  4. 


WEDNESDAY,  OCT.  3. 


8  9 


S  3 

-I  o- 


Kepts.  Smoth'd. 


5  ? 


SAT.,  May  6.    I  Friday.  May  5.  i  THirRs..  May  4.    JWed.,  May  3. 


6.  -  r 

5." 

1.       r  3. 

^opoo 

3  i  i  p  i 

ooo  1 

ilig 

§ 

ooo3 
2=23 

% 

o 

:  fourth  clay. 
Education  1 
Revisals  (K 

: 

B 

cr 

3 

'  report 
pbcopa 

1 

o. 

s» 

i 

5 

5 

o 

I  w 

1 

S 
in 

i 

? 

1 

\^  > 

H 

(>§ 

'■c 

... 

— 

%"'% 

3  Q 

"■o 

3 
3 

Tuesday, 

Oct.  9. 

MONIJA 

^ ,  Oct 

SAT.,  OCT.  6. 

\y 

Oct.  5. 

e. 

5. 

4. 

3. 

p 

N.  D.l 
P.B.i 

:  ^:  ^ 

•  S- 

:  +• 

i  p 
:  *■ 

s 

i  i  i  f 

i  ppS  j 

i  t>i 

:  Pi 

p 

y.  : 

i  i  :  f 

: 

i 

-i  

:  ;  >: 

:  :  ^ 

:  >:  : 

oo 

c| 

>\  :  i 

^: 

•  :  p: 

:  :  p 

•  Pi  : 

pi  :  : 

p 

pi 

■5: 

i  i 

; ;  ?^  i 

3 

OpH 

lis  1 

•  •  I. 

CD 

i 

M« 

•  p 

a 

P:  P: 

P:  P 

:  i  i  P 

»:  :  •.  |Td 

i:  :  i  a 

; 

ai 

■^i 

p 

p 

P:  P: 

P 

T\  ]  o 

:  ■ 

p 

Si 

p 

S. 

O:  P: 

pi  p 

■  ■  ■  n 

P  : 

:  i  :  a 

S: 

S): 

H:  a: 

■  :  P 

i  i  i  P 

: 

p  j 

\\\> 
:  i  :  P 

jwbd 

,  May  10.  TuES.,  May  9. ' 

MON..  M 

AY  8. 

Days  of  Month. 

9. 

i 

7. 

Days  of  Session. 

■  I- 

Reports  Intro- 
duced. 

Laid  over  to  be 
Printed. 

Report'  Dis- 
cussed. 

Rppoi  ts  ^iiKiile 

O 

o 

'trT. 

"OctT 
9. 

— 

rHuu.,  oci.  u. 

8. 

Wed.,  Oct.  10. 
7. 

Final  Action  on 
Reports. 

Character  of. 

Reports  Siootli- 

Day.»  of  Montli. 
Days  of'Se-sion. 

;  .<^.'^:  : 

pp 

;  :  :  :  p 

Reports  Intro- 
duced. 

p:  : 

:  pp:  : 

:  > 
\  p 

Ri'ports  put  on 
Calendar. 

>> 

A.C.I 
A.C'i' 

Reports  Dis- 
cussed. 

1 

— r— 

'i  • 

Reports  made 
Special  Order. 

1 

p 

: 

P: 

3p; ; 

ota:  : 

Final  Action  on 
Reports. 

; 

.«! 

Character  of. 

Kepts.  Sinoth'd. 

■ 

\^ 

^3 

k; 

p:  :  p: 

^\ 

Reports  Intro- 
<luced. 

:  c: 

i  Si; 

■  ■  V, 
:  b 

RipovtsLaidon 
Table. 

Sen 

pi  ;  p.- 

11 

Uej>orts^  Dis- 

c 

\  :• 

9;  :  ; 
i:  : 

Reports  made 
Speci.il  Order. 

t>!z: 
PP 

; ;  ^gg 

z: 
3: 

M 

P:  : 

Final  Action  on 
Reports. 

\ 

S^w 
?■ 

i  i  w 

op 

h; 

H 1 

W:  :  ;  : 

b;  i  i  i 

Character  of. 

Repts.  Smotb'd. 

Monday,  May  15.  Saturday,  May  13.    Friday,  May  12.  Th.,  MayH. 
13.                          12.                           11.  lO. 

i ;  i  tti  K 

•  :  :  r-':  9 

P:  :  :  ;  :  :  : 

:  :  :  :  ;  pp.  : 

mm 

uiii  nnn 

|:  :::::::  : 

\r-r-.   

:  :  ;  P:  :  :  :  : 
:  :  :      :  :  :  : 

■  ■  '■  9  -  a 

■  ■  ■  a-  n 

aj:  ::::::::::::  : 
::::::: 

i; ; 

>::::.::..:.    :  : 

;    WED.,  Oct.  1 
13.-- 

7.     i  Tuesday,  Opt.  K.  Moxn.AV. 
1              12.  11 

Oct.  15    Sal.  Oct.  13. 

lO. 

iyj.  ~:      y':  >>^' 

; ;  ^  ;  i^^s?-  ■ 

;  :  p:  :  .op-~ 

-.r-~y-    'f-  :  o;  : 

pU:  £:  03:  S:  f 

•>:  : 
-P:  :  -r;-: 

>:  >■  ^:  >:            :  ^> 
p'  p;  p'  p''  P'-r^'  ■•  ^f. 

cf.;  ■.'.':> 
KC-  =;     p:  :  :  :  P 

Mi  i  p:       ^>  : 

>           y^:  :  :  :  > 
.  p-.  prj    P:  ;  i  :  p 

■         ^   >>           ;  !>■• 
;  :  p:  g :  p-  i     p:  p: 

p:  P-"      :  :  :  :  • 

; ;  Pp---cp: 

ppp;  ppp!^  ::::•:: 

o.-^.o-O'  ; ;  op:  ; 

M  M  1     ; ; ; ; 

\  :^ ;  ^ 

.        :  :  :  :  CO 

— 

: : PoooPOOf 

: 

:  :  •    •  p-  •  p- 

■  > 

p     :  pp  :  jO:  :  :    :  : 

»    :  ■  > 

•"Pi  ; ;  ■  Pi  P 

THUKsnAv,  MAY  18.  Wed.,  May  17  Tdksda-s 

.  Ma 

Y  Ifi. 

Dnys  of  Month. 

16. 

1 

5.  1 

a:        :  :  :  : 
:  p-.M  ;  :  :  ! 

::::  a'  ■ 
•Mi  P:  M  i  :  : 

Itrports  Intro- 
ilucL-d. 

:  '^1-! :  :  :  : 

:  cc:  f:  rrr 
;  bb:  b:  bb'c 

•  rri:  •  :  : 
:  oo!:  ■  ■  ■ 

L:ii(l  over  to  be 
I'rintL-d. 

:  :  :  :  03; 
:  :  :  :  o- 
:  :  :  :  S: 

:  :  :  1  :  :  : 
i  :  :  ji-:  :  : 

MMi„MM;; 

:  :  :  :  [o:  —  ■  :  ; 

Report.^  Dis- 

i 

:  :  ;  :  1:  :  ;  :  :  .  : 

j  Reports  ni;ide 

i  i  i  i  li  i  i  i  i  i  i 

1    Special  Older. 

-H-r  • : : : 

.      .  . 

Fir.jil  Artion  on 

i 

:  :  :  :  P: 

i  i  i  b  i  i 

1  — 

M  i  iai  M 

1  Character  of. 

M  M  li 

:  i  :  :  Mi  i  i  i  i  i 

1":  :  :  :  SJWK? 

=aK  i  i  :  ^ 

I„          «  , 
Reports  Siuotli- 

Saturday,  Oct.  20.  Fri.,0 

CT.  19.    THLiKsnAV,  Oct.  18. 

Days  of  Month. 

1«.  1 

4. 

Iiiiys  of  Se-sioi) 

::::::  ioio.'"  Cd.»J~  r  :  :  : 

:  :  :  0  :         ;  : 
:  :  :  iq  :  ppp:  :  f 

i  i  :  k  ■  kbbi  i  is 

:  i  : 

5  Reports  Intro- 
duced. 

o-  • 

;  :  :  :  :  :  ; 

:  :  ;  :  :  ;  o:  :  :  ; 

Reports  put  on 
Calendar. 

pppp 

aii^^  i  oi  i 
:  b:  i 

o:  :  §  :  p:  P^PPoo-" 
i=i  i  k  i  gi  gJ^ga'co^F 

'  Reports  Dis- 
{  cussed. 

i 

:  :  ;  :  p: 

Reiiorts  made 
Special  Order. 

3 
s 

f*:  nnpn 

pg^^«  MM 

oi  i     :  pi  p^ppm-^ 

3  Final  .\ction  on 

i  k  :  S^SS 

1  Reports 

pi  •'^•'^^H 

Wt?il-'^1S>-  :  i  i  : 
•  •  p-     :  :  •  : 

:  :     :    :  f>. 
■  ;  :  ■  •  ■  :  ■  p 

ppar 



Character  of. 

Repts,  Sniiitli'd. 

:      :  ':  : 
:  pi  :  :  i 

:  :  0  :  :  :  1^ 
i  i  k  ;  :  :  a> 

M  g  i  i  i     i  1 

i  ^'.''''i  pi 

Repo  ts  Intro- 
duced. 

1  R'  ports  Laid  on 
!  Table. 

"  -'i  i  :  p 

;  i  k  :  i  i  cc 

y\  o- 

•  Reports  Dis- 
;  cussed. 

i 

;  i  :  i  :  p:  :  i 

Rei.orts  m.'.de 
f  pecial  Order. 

1 

B 

;  >i  i  i  O 
:  "i  i  :  b 

^: 
coi 

i  i  .0  i  :  : 
:  i  g  :  :  :  fo 

i  i  ^:^i  n: 

i  i  ^"i  ^i 

'^'Kepoi  ts.  " 

i  -^i  ;  i  l":  Hi 
:  i^:  :  :  y-.  '  : 

:  :  H:  :  i  W 

M  Hi  M  *M  b 

i  p 

M:  H: 

Character  of. 

:::  I:  ::::::::  : 

•  :  :  :    Itipt?.  .'^indll,  il. 

I  TrBS..  May  23.    Moxday,  May  22.   Saturday,  May  20.  ■   Fktday,  May  19. 


20. 

19 

17. 

,  . 

u 

■  cfii-frW: 
•  f^'i.-^: 

P-"=i  tr.i  a 
kP:  ^: 
•  <-:  i.:  i» 

rrr. 
bob: 

bb 

r 
b 

rrcrr': 
cbcob: 

"  rr:  tr:  r 
bb:  O:  P 

•  ■« 

■^p 

:  1: 

S3:" :  D3:":" 
h-  '■  h-  ■ 
■fe!  :  <?!  ; 

; 

I; 

:  Mj 
:  ? 

S  ■  = 

• 

^■^  :  ': 

: 

^1  :  rj  : 

■  : 

:  •.  ? 
:  : 

y.  p 

r. 

6e 

"air'.^^.^^sK:  i  : 

Thubs.,  Oct.  25. 

WED. 

Oct 

Tuesday,  Oct.  23 

1  filONDAY, 

OCT.  22. 

so. 

19 

18. 

17. 

|92  introd 

•  P 

: 

S: 

:  ct 
ppopo:  SH^'i 

■  :  pp.npCi 

P :  ksesb's 

Spp:  :  g 

c  ; 

a  '■■ 

:  P 
:  S 

0  : 

:  :  0:  :  :  :  ;  : 

;  !  is;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ; 

pppp 

a. 

JOOOQOOO 

o-  00: 

ppopo: 

:  p: 

.opp-^i 

upon  or 

"i 

:  0:  :  :  : 

;    i  ;  ; 

p: 

accepted 

30000000 

ogo.o: 

:  : 

P; 

d: 
N: 

Hooo!*te 

5gbsP;o 

g  ? 

§  r 

n-  • 

0.0 : 

•  Tj-     .  . 

•  :  >H>'* 
:  :  -".C 

H  : 
"  : 

■fl: 

78  Inl 
as  flna 

.op^; 

:  0: 

;  Ps>>r 
:  B.i>ook 

:  000000^.''^ 

:  .0: 

:  :  13:  : 

§ 

:  :  :  :  r: 

;  i  f*; ; 

■5 

013: 

"pp^j 

:  oooooo: 

:  : 

:  cc 

oi;: 

J  : 

:  .Og>:  > 
'        0!  ^.C  K 

accepted 

HH: 

0 

1_33: 

j:  : 

3:  H-'^-'*:  t?3a  H 
:  ■  pp:  •  •  j- 

:  t 

>- 

.  p.  .  .  .  .  . 

FHI..MAY26.  THtni..MAY25.    Wed.,  MAY  24.  PaysnrA! 


Ktiiorif  Intro- 


UM  over 


Wtl  Character  of. 


lO      S         ».  §3 


WKD..  May  31.      TnESDAY.  Mat  30. '  Mos.,  Mat  a).  '  Sat.,  mat  27. 


27. 

26. 

25. 

24. 

47  rifreporte  acted  on  or  accepted  as  final. 
tW  Reports  suppressed,  47  2  3 ! !! 

p 

:  ?^ 
:  P 
:  to: 

pep; 

:  rrt- 
■  'pop 

rir 

CO 

cn 
O 

• 

ntn 
o'cc 

^r^ 

p.w.^l'^.§§?g.S 

^2  >p  -"i  i 

: 

!» 

c 

> 

o-  •  •  • 

c 

3'  ■  .O 

ts 

:  .H:  : 

.f 

•  .t": 
:  p; 
;  «: 

'  <->? 
: 

'.  : 

:  : 

:  WSJm 

No.  of  Bal- 
lot. 

2 
J, 

ffnertcnl 

? 
3. 

3 

r 

2 

0. 

2 
I 

1 

i 

Dr-'  

Orders. 

1  No.  of  Die  " 

 I  rusenteil^ 


sfesesecssssssaassfj  Aye?. 


SS 

Nays. 

a 

o 

EXI 

Divided. 

o 

J. 

00 

^ 

e 

e 

No.  of  Bal- 
lot. 

►q 

-I 

z 

p 

sitting  togethe 
arguments,  a  ma 
ways  votes  withe 

fl 

"r'  2. 
;  P 

1 

f 

p 

:  g. 

g 

i 

:  £ 

O 

? 

■UTIES  BY  IlIOC: 

g 

S3  £ 

No.  nfOin- 
ecscs  Rep- 
resented. 

'  of  ti 
irityol 

s 

Ayes. 

d 

ill 

E3 

S  5 

Nays. 

o 
to 

w 

same 
lerty 

Divided. 

cc 

288 


Principles  of  Church  Government. 


CHAPTER  XIX, 

REMARKS  ON  THE  FOREGOING  TABLES. 

"All  comparisons  are  odious,"  at  least  to  one  of  the 
parties,  yet  I  cannot  refrain  from  comments  on  the  sig- 
nificant facts  presented  in  the  foregoing  exhibits  of  work 
accomplished  in  the  General  Conference  of  1876  as  com- 
pared with  the  General  Convention  of  1877.  Nothing 
could  afford  me  more  pleasure  than  to  be  able  to  do  a  dis- 
agreeable thing  agreeably — to  state  an  infelicitous  thing 
felicitously — but  I  cannot.  I  might  as  well  attempt  to 
touch  off  a  columbiad  lightly.  It  cannot  be  done. 
This  comparison  is  not  in  our  favor. 

I  find  some  relief,  however,  as  I  recollect  the  charac- 
teristic words  of  John  Wesley:  "Most  reformers  begin 
by  denouncing  others;  we  began  by  denouncing  our- 
selves." A  grander  utterance  never  fell  from  the  lips 
of  man. 

1.  Let  us  look  at  the  comparative  thoroughness  with 
which  the  work  of  formulation  was  wrought  in  the 
standing  committees  respectively.  It  is  worth  while 
to  remark  that  the  General  Convention  was  composed 
of  about  the  same  proportions  of  ministerial  and  lay 
members  as  our  own  General  Conference,  and  by  a 
strange  coincidence  handled  the  same  number  of  re- 
ports. 

The  number  of  subsidiary  motions,  especially  of 


Remarks  on  the  Foregoing  Tables.  289 


amendments  that  were  maile  by  each  house  respectively 
in  their  further  elaboration,  will  indicate  the  compara- 
tive tlioroughness  of  formulation  in  the  two  bodies  with 
a  good  degree  of  certainty,  for,  says  Sir  Charles  Wag- 
ner, "  When  a  bill  is  hastily  brought  in  it  generally  re- 
quires mature  deliberation  and  many  amendments  in  its 
progress  through  the  house,  which  always  takes  a  great 
deal  of  time.  Whereas,  when  it  is  maturely  considered 
and  iully  concerted  before  it  is  brought  in,  the  first 
draft  of  the  bill  is  generally  so  perfect  that  it  requires 
but  few  amendments,  wadi  the  rapidity  of  its  progress 
always  bears  proportion  to  the  maturity  of  its  first 
concoction."  * 

Now,  as  to  the  measures  brought  before  the  General 
Conference  and  the  General  Convention  respectively, 
we  have  in  Exhibit  No.  4  the  following:  "Motions  to 
amend — General  Conference  196  ;  General  Convention 
74,"  giving,  accoi'ding  to  the  authority  just  quoted, 
strong  evidence  not  in  our  favor.  As  the  discussions 
recorded  in  the  dailies  show  that  most  of  these  amend- 
ments were  introduced  during  the  discussion  of  the 
forty-eight  reports  of  the  standing  committees  acted 
on,  it  implies  that  some  of  the  conditions  of  formula- 
tion by  committees  had  been  but  poorly  regarded. 
That  the  talent  in  the  committees  of  the  Conference 
was  inferior  to  that  of  the  committees  of  the  General 
Convention  we  could  not,  of  course,  for  an  instant 
allow ;  but  this,  we  think,  the  reading  of  both  journals 
will  indicate  with  the  clearness  of  a  sunbeam — that 
the  great  difference  in  results  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact 
*  Con.  Dtb.,  xi,  116,  lit. 

19 


290      Principles  of  Chukch  Goveunment. 


that  the  method  of  appointment  in  the  one  is  more  likely 
to  adapt  special  talent  to  special  services  than  in  the 
other.  The  president  of  the  General  Convention,  who 
from  long  service  in  it  has  knowledge  of  the  capacities 
of  different  men  for  different  departments  of  service, 
is  enabled  to  put  the  right  man  in  the  right  place.  If 
a  chairman  of  any  one  of  the  committees  demonstrates 
especial  talent  for  drafting  reports  in  canonical  form, 
and  for  conducting  them  on  their  passage  through  the 
house,  he  is  made  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Can- 
ons or  Amendments  to  the  Constitution  and  kept  there. 
The  first  report  of  the  Committee  on  Canons,  introduced 
on  the  morning  of  the  fourth  day  in  the  General  Con- 
vention, and  marked  "C.  1"  (in  Exhibit  No.  5),  men- 
tions the  fact  that  the  retiring  chairman,  Rev.  W.  C, 
Mead,  D.D.,  had  been  a  member  of  the  House  for  forty- 
two  years,  a  member  of  the  Committee  on  Canons  thirty 
years,  and  its  chairman  for  twenty-four  years,  or  eight 
consecutive  sessions.  He  was  probably  an  expert;  and 
the  presidents  of  the  Convention  knew  it,  and  were 
sensible  enough  to  set  him  at  the  work  for  which  he 
was  especially  fitted,  in  which  he  could  best  serve  the 
Church.  Does  any  man  believe  that,  if  the  General 
Convention  returned  only  one  fifth  of  all  its  previous 
members,  and  if  the  chairmanship  was  an  elective  office, 
a  place  of  honor  to  be  sought  after,  comparative  stran- 
gers to  such  would  return  the  same  man,  no  matter 
what  his  special  qualifications  or  the  needs  of  the  Church 
might  be,  to  the  same  place  for  eight  consecutive  terms  ? 
It  is  needless  to  say  that  the  cliances  would  be  fearfully 
against  him.   The  "  Rotation  Rapier,"  wielded  skillfully 


Remarks  o.v  the  Fokegoixg  Tables.  291 


by  some  aspirant  for  the  honors  of  the  place,  would 
make  very  quick  work  with  him. 

Does  this  language  shock  you  ?  Would  to  God  that  it 
were  only  a  painting  of  the  imagination!  Do  you  say 
"impossible?"  Look  at  this  in  a  paper  entitled  The 
Methodist,  dated  New  York,  April  24,  1880,  on  the 
first  page;  on  the  outside;  it  was  intended  to  be  seen! ! 
It  was  not  on  Christian  Perfection,  not  on  the  Higher 
Life,  not  on  "  In  honor  preferring  one  another,"  not  a 
prayer  saying,  "Lord,  thou  knowest  the  hearts  of  all 
men:  show  whether  of  these  two  Thou  hast  chosen  that 
he  may  take  part  of  this  ministry  and  apostleship  from 
which  Judas  by  his  transgression  fell  that  he  might  go 
to  his  own  place."  No,  but  it  is  after  the  style  of  a 
whooping  savage  with  dripping  scalp  and  butcher 
knife  uplifted.  "As  the  General  Conference  draws 
near  it  becomes  apparent  that  Dr.  A.  will  be  returned 
to  his  present  position  unless  he  is  made  Bishop  or 
Missionary  Secretary.  Dr.  B.  has  been  beaten,  proba- 
bly, so  badly — "  "  Has  been  beaten  !  "  When  ?  Where? 
How? — "has  been  beaten,  probably,  so  badly  that  he 
will  not  have  more  than  twenty-six  of  the  eighty-five 
votes  of  the  patronizing  conferences.  At  the  same 
time  we  may  conjecture  that  Dr.  B.'s  public  services 
are  ending."     Whose  enemy  hath  done  this  f 

Now,  it  is  evident  from  this  extract,  and  others  we 
might  give  from  the  same  issue,  that  somebody  thinks 
that  "  pipe-laying,"  "  log-rolling,"  and  "  wire-pulling  " 
are  possible  in  the  General  Conference.  And  if  so 
much  of  it  is  possible  in  reference  to  the  higher  offices 
of  the  Church  is  it  not  also  possible  that  these  chairman- 


292       Principles  of  Church  Governmext. 

ships  may  be  sought  by  aspirants  as  stepping-stones  to 
something  higher?  Will  any  one  say,  O,  it  is  the 
American  way  of  doing  things,  and  that  which  is  good 
enough  ir  the  State  is  good  enough  in  the  Church  ?  We 
reply,  first,  that  it  is  notorious  that  our  very  best  men 
are  rarely  promoted  in  politics — that  if  one  refuses  to 
play  into  the  hands  of  those  who  bend  all  things  to 
success  he  is  soon  thrust  "  down  and  out  ; "  and, 
secondly,  it  is  not  "  the  American  way  of  doing  things" 
in  the  chief  legislative  bodies  of  the  land.  Cushing,  in 
his  work  on  parliamentary  practice,  page  90,  says: 
"  One  single  point  of  difference  between  the  functions 
of  the  speaker  of  the  House  of  Commons  and  the 
same  office  in  our  legislative  assemblies  will  serve  to 
explain  the  relative  authority  they  possess.  With  us 
it  is  the  almost  invariable  practice  to  confer  upon  the 
presiding  officer  the  appointment  of  all  committees. 
...  In  England  committees  are  usually  named  in  the 
first  instance  by  the  member  who  proposes  the  resolu- 
tion for  their  appointment,  subject,  of  course,  to  the 
control  of  the  house." 

These  two  methods  of  appointment  are  before  you, 
side  by  side — the  American  method,  which  puts  the 
appointment  of  these  most  important  officers  in  the 
hands  of  those  most  competent  and  disinterested,  and 
the  other  the  method  of  ward  caucuses,  which  open  the 
door,  at  least,  for  the  entrance  of  men  whose  chief 
recommendation  is  their  ambition  to  occupy  the  chair. 
We  submit  that  our  Board  of  Bishops,  whose  business 
it  is  to  study  men,  and  whose  general  superintendency 
brings  them  in  contact  with  the  largest  number  of  the 


Remarks  ox  the  Foregoing  Tables.  293 


ablest  minds  of  the  Church,  know  best  tlie  men  who 
shall  meet  its  demands.  They  are  manifestly  in  a  posi- 
tion the  farthest  removed  from  the  reach  of  partisan 
influence  or  passion,  and  the  best  qualified  from  their 
extensive  knowledge  and  acknowledged  disinterested- 
ness to  make  these  appointments  for  the  good  of  the 
Church  alone.  On  the  other  hand,  here  is  a  practice 
which,  at  least,  opens  a  door  for  the  politicians  of  the 
Church,  a  standing  temptation  to  pipe-laying,  log-roll- 
ing, or  wire-pulling.  We  call  upon  this  body  to  bolt 
the  door  upon  this  political  spirit — a  growing  evil  in  our 
midst — and  to  make  it  fast  with  a  seal  as  broad  and 
emphatic  as  a  unanimous  vote,  as  "  This  kind  goeth  not 
out  but  by  prayer  and  fasting."  To  every  busy 
button-holer  who  says,  "  You  go  for  my  candidate  and 
I  will  go  for  yours,"  let  every  delegate  say,  "  Get 
thee  behind  me,  Satan;  thou  art  an  offense  unto  me,  for 
thou  savorest  not  of  the  things  that  be  of  God,  but 
those  that  be  of  men."  "Resist  the  devil  and  he  will 
flee  from  you."  At  the  very  opening  of  every  session, 
let  us  send  demagogy  to  its  own  pl.ice.  Let  us  bury  it 
in  a  pit  that  is  bottomless. 

As  to  the  importance  of  a  very  great  reductios 
in  the  size,  we  think  there  is  a  good  degree  of  unanim- 
ity. The  members  of  a  large  committee  stand  in  each 
other's  way  and  tend  to  reduce  the  sense  of  responsi- 
bility. Put  a  few  men  in  the  focal  blaze  of  the  world's 
thought  and  you  wonderfully  stimulate  both  their  in- 
dustry and  tlieir  fidelity;  cloud  that  position  with 
numbers  and  you  remove  that  stimulus.  The  deprav- 
ity that  inheres  in  masses  of  even  good  men  finds  ex- 


294        Principles  op  Church  Government. 


pression  in  a  singularly  absnrd  and  contradictory 
aphorism.  Instead  of  saying,  "  What  is  every  body's 
business  is  my  business,"  depravity  feels  and  acts  on 
the  proposition  that  what  is  every  body's  business  is 
nobody's  business. 

The  wisdom  of  the  General  Convention  is  at  no  point 
more  apparent  than  in  the  fact  that,  while  the  body 
numbers  three  hundred  nnd  eighty,  or  twenty-five  more 
than  our  own,  most  of  their  standing  committees  num- 
ber only  thirteen.  Two  members  of  the  standing 
committees  from  each  of  the  General  Conference  dis- 
tricts is  the  very  highest  number  we  should  think  of 
allowing. 

2.  Freedom  of  discussion.  By  the  light  of  our  axioms 
let  us  interpret  our  tables  under  tliis  head. 

What  are  the  facts  ?  The  number  of  words  em- 
ployed in  the  debates  of  a  session  is  one  of  the  surest 
indexes  at  least  of  its  freedom.  Look  at  Exhibit  No.  3. 
The  debates  of  our  last  General  Conference  session,  as 
published  in  the  Daily  Christian  Advocate,  exclusive 
of  fraternal  addresses,  though  continued  twenty-seven 
days,  number  but  271,418  words,  while  those  of  the 
General  Convention  for  twenty  days  only,  as  published 
in  the  Daily  Churchman,  exclusive  of  fraternal  ad- 
dresses, number  500,395  words  ;  almost  double  the 
number  of  the  Conference.  See  also  Exhibit  No.  5, 
giving  the  number  of  times  some  of  the  reports  were 
discussed. 

On  what  conditions  can  this  amazing  difference  in  the 
result  be  accounted  for? 

(1.)  The  first  condition  of  freedom  of  debate  was  not 


Remarks  on  the  Foregoing  Tables.  295 


in  their  favor,  for  the  size  of  the  Convention  (see  Ex- 
hibit No.  2 — General  Conference  335,  General  Conven- 
tion 380)  exceeded  that  of  the  General  Conference  by 
twenty-live  members. 

(2.)  Its  second  condition,  limiting  speakers  to  fifteen 
minutes,  the  same  as  our  own,  was  oftener  mspended 
than  any  other  rule,  and  unbounded  liberty  was  ac- 
corded to  some  of  the  speakers,  who,  having  some- 
thing special  to  say,  occupied  the  floor  for  hours  in 
succession. 

(3.)  The  previous  question,  that  standing  reproach  of 
JMethodist  legislation,  was  not  recognized  by  the  rules 
of  the  Convention.  The  only  approximation  ajiparent 
was  the  fixing  in  only  a  few  instances  of  a  date  in  the 
future  at  which  hour  a  vote  should  be  taken,  the  de- 
bater meantime,  of  course,  being  allowed  to  continue. 

(4.)  We  come  now  to  the  fourth  condition  of  freedom 
of  debate,  and  one  of  the  most  important — an  order  of 
business  which  shall  save  the  time  that  should  be  given 
to  debate.  When  one  reads  in  our  Journal  such  sen- 
tences as  the  following,  "  After  protracted  discussion  as 
to  the  best  methods  of  organization  of  standing  com- 
mittees the  whole  subject  was  laid  on  the  table,"*  we 
get  a  glimpse  of  the  manner  in  which  most  valuable 
time  is  consumed,  not  in  doing,  but  in  simply  getting 
ready  to  do;  and  if  one  will  go  carefully  through  tlie 
General  Conference  Journals  and  dailies,  distinguishing 
between  the  motions  to  act,  or  such  as  relate  to  the 
temporary  agencies,  methods,  and  conveniences  of  the 
acting  body  itself,  on  the  one  hand,  and  motions  to 
♦General  Conference  Journal,  p.  72. 


296      Principles  op  Church  Government. 


enact,  such  as  relate  to  permanent  legislation  for  the 
whole  Church,  and  note  the  vast  excess  of  the  former 
over  the  latter,  he  will  no  longer  wonder  that  we  have 
almost  ceased  to  be  a  deliberative  body ;  that  we  have 
so  little  time  for  discussion. 

In  Exhibit  4  wo  find  that,  while  in  the  General  Conven- 
tion the  motions  to  enact  are  almost  double  the  number 
of  those  to  act,  in  the  General  Conference  the  motions  to 
act  are  more  than  double  the  motion  to  enact,  as  375  to  182 
— more  than  two  to  one.  The  scaffolding  twice  the  size 
of  edifice  in  building  !  Was  that  exhibit  ever  paralleled 
in  ecclesiastical  architecture  elsewhere,  or  in  other  de- 
partments of  human  endeavor  ?  A  railway  engine  that 
should  require  a  tender  for  its  fuel  twice  the  size  of  its 
train  would  either  be  run  through  the  land  as  a  curiosity, 
or  off  the  track  at  the  first  station.  A  drayman  who 
should  toggle  his  harness  until  it  was  twice  the  size  and 
weight  of  an  ordinary  load  would  be  arrested  for  "  cru- 
elty to  animals."  And  the  architect  or  master  builder 
who  would  spend  twice  as  much  time,  labor,  and  money 
on  liis  sc :iff"()lding  as  on  his  building  would  be  either 
sent  to  Bedlam  as  crazy  or  to  General  Conference  as 
just  the  man!  In  the  General  Convention  we  find  the 
motions  to  act  only  about  one  half  the  number  of  the 
motions  to  enact — the  house  twice  the  size  of  the  scaf- 
folding, as  it  should  he.  Is  it  any  wonder  that  the  one 
has  ample  time  for  discussion  and  that  the  other  finds  it 
convenient  to  "move  the  previous  question"  twenty- 
nine  times  in  twenty-seven  days  ? 

A  few  facts  in  the  General  Convention  readily  ac- 
count for  this  amazing  contrast,  and  show  how  time  is 


Remarks  on  the  Foregoing  Tables.  297 


saved  for  the  thorough  discussion  of  every  thing  that 
comes  before  it : 

(1.)  The  rules  of  each  session  being  binding  on  all 
subsequent  sessions  of  the  convention,  each  session  is, 
of  course,  organized  under  law.  The  number  and 
names  of  the  standing  committees  are  all  ordered  in 
the  rules,  and  there  is  no  need  of  wasting  time  by 
"  motions  to  rtc<." 

(2.)  The  standing  committees  cover  nearly  all  ihe 
committee  ground  of  the  Convention — the  Committee 
on  Elections,  for  instance,  charged  with  the  admission 
of  all  new  members  to  seats  in  the  Convention,  grant- 
ing leave  of  absence,  etc.,  by  a  single  report,  which  is 
accepted  without  action,  disposes  of  a  large  list  of  mo- 
tions to  act,  and  saves  much  time. 

(3.)  The  president,  by  appointing  all  committees  and 
announcing  all  changes  in  committees,  saves  another 
large  list  of  motions  to  act  and  much  valuable  time. 

.1.  The  conditions  of  security  of  enactment,  other 
things  being  equnl,  are  (1)  those  parliamentary  checks 
or  brakes  upon  the  hurry  and  heedlessness  of  business, 
such  as  the  requisition  of  notice,  permission  to  bring  in, 
lefen  ing  to  committees,  the  writing  of  resolutions,  the 
jirinting  of  reports,  the  ordering  of  a  certain  number  of 
readings,  the  going  into  committee  before  the  third 
reading;  and  (2)  especially  the  degree  of  distinctive- 
ness and  separation  of  the  two  concurring  or  disagree- 
ing houses.  Singular  as  it  may  seem,  the  self-evi- 
dency  of  this  latter  condition  is  questioned  by  some 
"who  admit  the  axiomatic  character  of  the  former  !  ! 
What  is  the  principle  involved  in  the  onc-Iiouse  check 


298 


Principles  of  Church  Government. 


that  requires  a  reference  to  a  committee  of  a  subject 
introduced  but  this  very  principle  of  the  concurrency 
of  distinct  and  separate  houses,  at  least  in  their  frac- 
tional sithere  ?  Can  any  man  question  that  the  special 
value  of  a  standing  committee  consists  in  the  very  fact 
that,  as  a  committee,  its  sessions  are  both  distinct  and 
separate  from  those  of  the  larger  and  concurrent  body, 
or  that  tliis  identical  principle,  at  the  very  summit  of 
one-house  wisdom,  finds  its  fullest  expression  and  most 
powerful  application  tor  the  security  of  enactment  in 
the  utterly  distinct  and  perfectly  separated  action  of  two 
concurrent  houses  ?  Are  not  two  brakes  better  than 
one  ?  Can  a  weak  one  be  more  conducive  to  safety  than 
a  strong  one  ? 

As  the  intrinsic  value  of  a  check  or  brake  in  physics 
consists  in  the  fact  that  its  application  involves  the  in- 
teraction of  two  distinct  and  separately  projected  forces, 
so  it  is  axiomatically  evident  that  legislative  science 
never  nails  the  brake  to  the  periphery  of  the  revolving 
legislative  wheel,  but  posits  it  on  a  distinct  and  sepa- 
rate basis  of  action.* 

*  Tliis  chapter  is  incomplete.  It  was  evidently  Dr.  Perrine's  last 
literary  work,  and  was  left  by  him  in  an  unfinished  condition. — 
Kditor. 


Objections  to  the  Two-House  Peinciple.  299 


CHAPTER  XX. 

OBJECTIOXS  TO  THE  TWO-HOUSE  PRINCIPLE. 

"  The  two-house  principle  has  been  declared  by  the 
advocates  of  democratic  unity  to  be  an  aristocratic  in- 
stitution. This  is  an  utter  mistake.  It  is  in  reality  a 
truly  popular  principle  to  insist  on  the  protection  of  a 
legislature  divided  into  two  houses."*  Daniel  Webster 
shows  that  this  is  not  a  check  upon  the  people,  but 
upon  the  agents  of  the  people,  that  they  may  be  re- 
strained from  oppressing  the  people  by  hasty,  indis- 
creet, or  unjust  legislation. f 

When,  in  the  last  French  constitutional  assembly, 
Odillon  Barrot  urged  with  ability  the  adoption  of  two 
houses,  Lamariine  argued  substantially  that  the  great 
principle  of  unity  (he  meant  centralization)  required 
the  establishment  of  one  house,  and  that  unless  the 
legislature  was  vested  in  one  house  alone,  "  it  would  be 
too  difficult  to  make  it  pass  over  from  a  simple  legisla- 
ture to  an  assembly  with  dictatorial  power^''  His 
words,  literally  translated,  were  as  follows  :  "To  such 
(domestic)  dangers  you  must  not  tliink  of  opposing  tAvo 
or  three  powers.  That  which  ought  to  oppose  it  is  a 
direct  dictatorship  uniting  within  its  hand  all  the 
powers  of  the  State,  etc." 

The  two-house  principle  is  the  most  insurmountable 
*  Lieber,  p.  194.  \  See  Webster's  Works,  vol.  i,  p.  10. 


300      Peinciples  op  Church  Goveenment. 


bulwark  against  despotic  power  that  political  science 
has  ever  devised.  Its  practical  effect  on  such  rules  of 
procedure  as  Lamartine  proposed  is  like  a  giant  pillar  to 
the  fabric  of  liberty. 

One  house  only  belongs  to  centralization,  and  is  in- 
compatible with  a  government  of  a  co-operative  or  con- 
current character,  which  we  hold  to  be  the  government 
of  freedom. 

"The  opposition,"  says  Woolsey,  "made  to  two 
chambers  on  the  ground  that  it  is  not  democratic  de- 
serves no  consideration." 

Another  objection  is  that  a  people  cannot  have  two 
wills  at  the  same  time  on  the  same  subject.  Hence  the 
legislative  body  which  represents  the  people  ought  to 
be  essentially  one.  One  of  the  houses  is,  therefore,  a  clog 
on  the  otherwise  free  movement  of  the  community. 

But  the  question  in  legislation  is  not  so  much  what  is 
but  what  oiKjht  to  be  the  will  of  the  people.  What 
would  it  be  if  they  were  in  the  representatives'  place, 
invested  with  the  powers  of  investigating  and  decid- 
ing !  Still  further,  it  is  a  harder  problem  to  find  out  in 
strictness  of  speech  what  is  the  will  of  the  people  than 
it  is  to  find  out  what  measures  are  best  for  the  common 
welfare.  The  ojnnion  and  will  of  any  modern  commu- 
nity changes  with  rapidity,  so  that  a  minority  easily 
becomes  a  majority  ;  and  this  ever-changing  will  is 
more  likely  to  find  expression  in  two  houses  elected  at 
different  times  and  renewed  in  a  different  manner  than 
could  possibly  be  in  one  house  alone.  Woolsey,  in  his 
Political  Science,  says  :  "  Both  houses  ought  to  repre- 
sent public  wisdom  and  intelligence,  and  progress  along 


Objections  to  the  Two-House  Principle.  301 


the  lines  of  conservative  principle.  But  if  they  were 
chosen  at  the  same  time  and  continued  for  the  same 
time  in  office  they  would  be  of  little  use;  indeed,  they 
would  be  under  the  temptation  to  differ  in  order  that 
it  might  be  seen  that  they  held  independent  opinions 
or  possessed  superior  ability.  The  conservative  and 
progressive  tendencies  ought  not  to  belong  respectively 
to  different  parts  of  the  political  machine  ;  both  cham- 
bers should  be  progressive  and  both  conservative,  al- 
though if  elected  at  different  times  they  would  have 
these  two  elements  in  differing  proportion." — P.  311. 

"There  are  also  excitements  in  one  house  which  do 
not  reach  the  other.  Every  public  body  is  influenced 
by  the  bias  and  temper  of  particular  members,  and  a 
house  large  enough  to  excite  debaters  into  passion  will 
be  more  liable  to  this  flaw  than  one  the  composition  of 
which  does  not  disturb  the  calm  that  should  belong  to 
a  deliberative  body.  I  believe  that  the  confidence  given 
to  the  bicameral  system  in  the  United  States  rests  very 
much  on  the  feeling  that  two  bodies  somewhat  dif- 
ferently constituted  will  originate  more  careful  and 
better  digested  legislation  than  could  be  expected  from 
one."  * 

Again  :  "  The  true  view  of  the  two  houses  is,  first, 
that  by  this  means  hasty  legislation  is  prevented.  Each 
house,  knowing  that  the  propositions  which  originate  in 
it  will  be  carefully  scrutinized  by  the  other,  will  be  ren- 
dered more  careful,  more  deliberate,  more  awake  to 
objections.  Even  its  own  reputation  is  at  stake  before 
the  public.  (One  house  cannot  be  expected  to  have  a 
*  Vol.  ii,  p.  312. 


802      Principles  op  Church  Government. 


tender  regard  for  the  good  name  of  the  other,  but  will 
be  too  ready  to  find  fault  with  its  conclusions.)  Mr. 
Mill  attaches  little  weight  to  this,  for  he  says :  '  It  must 
be  a  very  ill-constituted  representative  assembly  in 
which  the  established  forms  of  business  do  not  require 
many  more  than  two  deliberations.' 

"  2.  Another  advantage  of  two  chambers  is  that  they 
lessen  the  evil  effect  produced  on  the  minds  of  any 
holders  of  power  when  they  have  only  themselves  to 
consult.  This  consideration  is  urged  by  Mr.  Mill,  and 
I  give  it  nearly  in  his  language  :  '  It  is  important  that 
no  set  of  persons  should  be  able  even  temporarily  to 
make  their  sic  volo  prevail  without  asking  any  one  else 
for  his  consent.  A  majority,  .  .  .  composed  of  the 
same  persons  habitually  acting  together,  easily  be- 
comes despotic  and  overbearing  if  released  from  the 
necessity  of  considering  wliether  its  acts  will  be  con- 
curred in  by  another  constitutional  authority.' " 

Again,  it  is  objected  to  the  two-house  principle  that 
it  will  have  a  tendency  to  separate  the  laity  and  the 
ministry;  that  it  will  be  a  bar  to  mutual  sympathy. 

1.  To  this  it  will  be  easily  said  that  the  principle 
embodied  in  it  is  of  too  wide  application.  It  lies  with 
equal  force  against  all  licensing,  all  ordination,  against 
every  possible  distinction  between  laity  and  ministry, 
and  must  be  pronounced  unscriptural,  un-Methodistic, 
contrary  to  the  established  facts  of  experience,  and 
therefore  worthless  as  an  objection. 

2.  It  is  absurd  that  the  best  means  for  the  protec- 
tion of  mutual  interests  should  be  a  bar  to  good  feel- 
ing.   The  laity  and  the  ministry,  each  at  liberty  in 


Objectioxs  to  the  Two-House  Principle.  303 


a  distinct  and  separate  house,  could  act  with  greater 
freedom,  and  with  far  less  of  the  feeling  that,  in 
given  instances,  the  legislation  is  the  result  of  class 
tendencies.  The  separate  consideration  of  each  other's 
well-considered  me.isures  would  promote  rather  than 
retard  the  brotherly  element. 


304      Principles  of  Church  Government. 


CHAPTER  XXI. 

PLAN  FOR  TWO  HOUSES. 

The  following  plan  was  proposed  by  Dr.  Perrine  to 
the  General  Conference  of  1880,  May  13,  and  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  the  Legislative  Department  of  the 
Church: 

Whereas,  "One  of  the  first  acts  in  the  organization 
of  the  early  Christian  Church,"  says  Rev.  George  R. 
Crooks,  D.D.,  the  most  vigorous  writer  of  the  age  on 
lay  representation,  "  was  the  separation  of  the  temporal 
concef-ns  from  the  spiritual  work  ;"*  and, 

Whereas,  Dr.  Coke,  "the  first  Protestant  bishop  of 
the  New  World,"  the  man  who,  under  God,  was  ap- 
pointed to  lay  the  structural  foundation  of  American 
Episcopal  Methodism,  according  to  the  Journal  of  the 
General  Conference  of  1804,  "moved,"  under  date  of  May 
11,  "to  divide  the  spiritual  and  temporal  concerns  of 
the  Discipline  "  (p.  54),  and  again,  under  date  of  May 
22,  "  moved  that  the  first  division  of  the  Discipline  shall 
be  entitled  only  '  The  Doctrines  and  Discipline  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,' " — subjects  which  he  most 
religiously  believed  were  especially  committed  by  the 
authority  of  the  great  Head  of  the  Church  to  the  super- 
vision of  those  who  are  called  of  God  and  freely  elected 
to  the  divinely  appointed  office  of  pastoral  elders  — 
*  See  Acts  vi,  and  Methodist,  May  1,  1875. 


Plan  for  Two  Houses, 


305 


"  and  the  second  division  be  entitled  only  '  The  Temporal 
Economy  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  '  "  (p.  64), 
thus  consistently  opening  a  door  through  which  the  laity 
might  some  day  enter  the  legislative  councils  of  the 
Church  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  word  of  God,  and 
in  the  light  of  the  best  accredited  maxims  of  legislative 
science;  and, 

Whei'eas,  According  to  letters  received  since  the  last 
General  Conference,  bearing  date  of  August  9,  24,  and 
30,  1876,  from  the  now  lamented  Dr.  Lovick  Pierce,  of 
Georgia,  in  which  he  speaks  of  Bishop  Asbury's  two- 
house  views  as  "  the  wonderful  communication  made  to 
me  sixty-five  years  ago,"  and  of  the  equally  wonderful 
fact  "  that  I  should  have  been  spared  so  many  years  to 
declare  this  wonderful  conception  of  the  pioneer  bishop 
of  Episcopal  Methodism  at  the  only  time  when  it  has 
been  called  for  by  pending  issues,"  it  appears  that 
"  Bishop  Asbury,"  so  far  from  even  outlining  any  thing 
that  could  bear  the  slightest  semblance  to  the  crudities 
of  the  present  "  plan,"  as  some  have  affirmed,  according 
to  Dr.  Pierce's  recollection,  "never  said  a  word  in  refer- 
ence to  a  mixed-up  General  Conference  of  lay  and  cleri- 
cal delegates,  all  voting  together  as  one  simple  mass;" 
that  "  Bishop  Asbury's  ideal  was  two  houses  "  (Aug.  9) : 
"A  house  of  representatives  made  up  of  laymen  and  local 
preachers,"  "  in  which  branch  of  the  General  Conference 
every  depart^nent  in  the  Church  (that  is,  the  laity  and 
local  preachership)  requiring  special  legislation  should 
be  represented;"  "next,  a  senatorial  house,  made  up  ex- 
clusively of  itinerant  ministers,"  "his  grand  idea"  being 
"that  an  itinerant  ministry  must,  of  course,  demand 
20 


306      Principles  of  Church  Governmext. 


and  have  special  legislation;"  that,  "being  in  itself  a 
grand  specialty,"  "  it  could  be  a  real  itinerant  ministry 
only  when  its  legislation  is  for  itself  and  by  itself,  or 
safely  under  its  control ; "  that  "  his  safeguard  for 
American  Episcopal  Methodism  was  the  common  sense 
of  State  legislation;  that  nothing  could  be  law  until 
both  houses  passed  upon  it"  (August  24,  1876);  and, 

Whereas,  This  ""common  sense  of  State  legislation," 
which  gives  to  the  immediate  representatives  of  the 
people  the  initiative  in  all  money  bills,  and  to  the 
Senate  certain  special  executive  functions,  if  applied  to 
Methodism,  giving  to  the  house  of  lay  representatives 
the  initiative  in  all  measures  relating  to  finance  and 
other  temporalities,  and  to  the  clerical  senate  the  initia- 
tive in  all  measures  relating  to  changes  in  the  ritual  and 
other  spiritual  concerns,  would  achieve  not  only  the 
effective  application  of  the  division  of  labor  principle, 
the  most  authoritative  in  civilization,  and  thus  the 
highest  degree  of  efKciency  in  ecclesiastical  legislation 
yet  attained  by  the  Church,  but,  by  giving  to  each  of 
the  determinate  orders  of  the  clergy  aii  l  laily  in  the 
Church  the  distinctive  functions  and  responsibilities 
enjoined  of  God  and  the  fathers,  would  accomplish 
that  most  devoutly  to  be  desired  end,  the  absolute 
reconciliation  of  the  now  hostile  and  belligerent  theories 
of  the  old  and  new  Methodisms;  and. 

Whereas,  Ninety-five  of  the  leaders  of  the  last  Gen- 
eral Conference,  lacking  only  thirty-two  of  a  majority, 
stood  up  not  only  in  repudiation  of  the  crudities  of  the 
present  plan,  but  in  favor  of  the  original  principles 
of  Methodism,  and  of  genuine  progress  along  these  con- 


Plan  fok  Two  Houses. 


307 


sevvative  lines  toward  the  goal  of  God's  ideal  in  leg- 
islation; therefore, 

jResolved,  That  it  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
the  Legislative  Department  of  the  Church,  to  consider 
and  report  upon  the  propriety  of  changing  Part  II, 
chapter  i,  section  1,  paragraphs  62,  63,  and  64,  of  the 
Discipline  so  as  to  read  as  follows: 

PART  II.— GOVERNMENT  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

Chapter  I. — The  Conferences. 

Section  1. —  The  General  Conference. 

^  62.  The  General  Conference  shall  consist  of  a  cler- 
ical senate  and  a  house  of  lay  representatives. 

I.  Clerical  Senate. 
^  63.  The  clerical  senate  shall  be  composed  of  one 

delegate  in  elders'  orders  for  every   members  of 

each  Annual  Conference,  to  be  a])pointed  either  by 
seniority  or  choice,  at  the  discretion  of  such  Annual 
Conference. 

^  64.  At  all  times  when  the  clerical  senate  is  met  it 
shall  take  two  thirds  of  the  clerical  delegates  elect  to 
constitute  a  quorum  for  the  transaction  of  business. 

^65.  One  of  the  general  superintendents  shall  pre- 
side in  the  clerical  senate,  but  in  case  no  general  su- 
perintendent be  present  the  clerical  senate  shall  pro- 
ceed without  debate  to  the  election  of  a  president  pro 
tern. 

1^  66.  The  clerical  senate  shall  have  the  initiative  in 
all  measures  relating  to  the  ritual  and  other  spiritual 


308      Principles  op  Church  Government. 


concerns  of  the  Church,  and  in  case  of  amendments 
arising  thereto  in  the  house  of  lay  representatives  the 
final  determination  thereof  shall  be  with  the  clerical 
senate. 

II.  House  of  Lay  Representatives. 

^  67.  The  house  of  lay  representatives  shall  be  com- 
posed of  one  layman  for  every  members  of  the 

Church  within  the  bounds  of  his  Annual  Conference, 

and  also  for  every  additional   thousand  members; 

said  lay  representatives  to  be  chosen  by  the  lay  stew- 
ards of  the  Annual  Conferences  on  the  day  fixed  for  the 
election  of  delegates  to  the  clerical  senate,  but  by  a 
separate  vote,  provided  that  the  number  of  lay  dele- 
gates to  the  house  of  representatives  shall  at  least  be 
equal  to  the  number  elected  to  the  clerical  senate,  and 
that  no  layman  shall  be  eligible  for  an  election  to  the 
General  Conference  who  shall  be  under  twenty-five 
years  of  age,  and  who  shall  not  have  been  a  member 
of  the  Church  for  five  consecutive  years  immediately 
preceding  his  election. 

1"  68.  At  all  times  when  the  house  of  lay  representa- 
tives is  met  it  shall  require  two  thirds  of  all  the  lay 
representatives  elect  to  constitute  a  quorum  for  the 
transaction  of  business. 

1"  69.  The  house  of  lay  representatives  shall  choose 
its  own  president  and  other  oflicers. 

1"  10.  The  house  of  lay  representatives  shall  have 
the  initiative  in  all  measures  of  finance,  and  other 
temporalities  of  the  Church,  and  in  case  of  amendments 
arising  thereto  in  the  clerical  senate  the  final  deter- 


Plan  for  Two  Houses. 


309 


mination  thereof  shall  be  with  tlie  house  of  lay  repre- 
sentatives. 

III.  Concurrent  Powers,  etc. 

^11.  These  two  distinct  and  separate  houses  shall 
have  concurrent  power,  as  above  provided,  to  make 
all  rules  and  regulations  for  our  Church  under  the  fol- 
lowing limitations  and  restrictions:  (see  Sec.  1,  2,  3,  4, 
5,  and  6,  Restrictive  Rules.) 

1"  12.  Joint  sessions  of  the  two  houses  shall  be  held 
for  the  hearing  of  the  quadrennial  addresses  of  the 
bishops,  for  the  reception  of  fraternal  delegations, 
and  for  the  election  of  all  the  officers  of  the  Church 
elected  by  the  General  Conference;  but  no  legislation 
shall  be  valid  except  it  shall  be  the  concurrent  action 
of  two  distinct  and  separate  houses. 

^  73.  All  elections  of  bishops,  book  agents,  secre- 
taries, and  editors  of  the  Church  shall  be  invariably 
by  ballot. 

^  74.  Neither  house,  during  the  session  of  the  Gen- 
eral Conference,  shall  adjourn  for  more  than  three  days 
without  consent  of  the  other,  nor  to  any  other  locality 
than  that  in  which  the  General  Conference  shall  be 
sitting. 

1  75.  The  General  Conference  shall  meet  in  the  citj'' 
of  Philadelphia  on  the  first  Wednesday  in  May,  1884, 
iiiid  thenceforward  in  such  place  or  places  as  shall  be 
fixed  upon  from  time  to  time  by  the  General  Confer- 
ence; but  the  general  superintendents,  or  a  majority  of 
them,  with  the  advice  of  two  thirds  of  all  the  Annual 
Conferences,  or,  if  there  be  no  general  superintendents, 
two  thirds  of  all  the  Annual  Conferences,  shall  have 


810      Peinciples  of  Church  Government. 


power  to  call  an  extra  session  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence at  any  time,  all  vacancies  to  be  filled  in  the  usual 
way. 

The  Plan 

as  modified  by  the  committee,  and  recommended  to 
the  General  Conference,  May  24,  1880  : 

PART  II.— GOVERNMENT  OF  THE  CHURCH. 
Chapter  I. — The  Conferences. 
Section  1.  —  The  General  Conference. 

%  62.  The  General  Conference  shall  consist  of  two 
distinct,  separate,  and  concurrent  houses,  to  be  called 
the  house  of  ministerial  delegates  and  the  house  of 
lay  delegates. 

1"  63.  The  house  of  ministerial  delegates  shall  con- 
sist of  one  delegate  for  every  forty-five  ministers  of 
each  Annual  Conference,  to  be  appointed  either  by 
seniority  or  choice,  at  the  discretion  of  such  Annual 
Conference,  yet  so  that  such  representatives  shall  have 
traveled  at  least  four  full  calendar  years  from  the 
time  that  they  were  received  on  trial  by  an  Annual 
Conference,  and  are  in  full  connection  at  the  time  of 
holding  the  Conference. 

1^  64.  The  house  of  lay  delegates  shall  consist  of 
two  laymen  for  each  Annual  Conference  entitled  to  two 
or  more  ministerial  delegates,  and  of  one  layman  for 
each  Annual  Conference  entitled  to  but  one  ministerial 
delegate,  said  delegates  to  be  chosen  by  an  electoral 
conference  of  laymen,  which  shall  assemble  for  the 
purpose  on  the  third  day  of  the  session  of  the  Annual 


Plax  foe  Two  Houses. 


311 


Couference  at  the  place  of  its  meeting  at  its  session 
immediately  preceding  the  General  Conference. 

1[  65.  The  electoral  conference  shall  be  composed, 
etc.  (same  as  in  Discipline). 

1"  66.  The  General  Conference  shall  meet,  etc.  (same 
as  in  Discipline). 

^67.  Whenever  the  General  Conference  is  con- 
vened each  house  shall  be  the  judge  of  the  election 
returns  and  qualifications  of  its  own  members,  and  a 
majority  of  each  shall  constitute  a  quorum  to  do  busi- 
ness, but  a  less  number  may  adjourn  from  day  to  day, 

1^  68.  One  of  the  bishops  shall  preside  in  the  house 
of  ministerial  delegates,  but  in  case  no  bishop  be 
present  the  house  shall  proceed  to  choose  from  its  own 
body,  without  debate,  a  president  pro  tempore.  Said 
house  shall  also  choose  all  its  other  officers. 

•[  69.  The  house  of  lay  delegates  shall  elect  from 
among  its  own  members,  without  debate,  the  president 
thereof,  and  shall  choose  all  its  other  officers. 

^  70.  Each  house  shall  have  power  to  originate  and 
propose  acts  for  the  concurrence  of  the  other. 

•[71.  Each  house  may  detei'mine  the  rules  of  its 
own  proceedings,  and  shall  keep  and  publish  a  Journal 
thereof;  and  the  yeas  and  nays  of  the  members  of 
either  house  on  any  question  shall  be,  at  the  desire  of 
one  fifth  of  those  present,  entered  upon  the  Journal. 

^  72.  Neither  house  during  the  session  of  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  shall,  without  the  consent  of  the  other, 
adjourn  for  more  than  one  day,  nor  to  any  other  place 
than  that  in  which  the  two  houses  shall  be  sitting. 

^  73.  Joint  sessions  of  the  two  houses  shall  be  held 


SI 2       Principles  of  Church  Government. 

for  the  hearing  of  the  quadrennial  addresses  of  the 
bishops,  the  reception  of  fraternal  delegates,  and  for 
the  election  of  all  the  officers  of  the  Church  elected  by 
the  General  Conference ;  but  no  legislation  shall  be 
valid  except  it  shall  be  the  concurrent  action  of  the 
two  distinct  and  separate  houses. 

*1[  14.  All  elections  of  bishops,  book  agents,  secretaries 
of  church  societies,  and  editors  of  our  official  papers  and 
periodicals  shall  be  invariably  by  ballot. 

1"  75.  The  General  Conference  shall  have  full  powers 
to  make  rules  and  regulations  for  our  Church  under  the 
following  limitations  and  restrictions;  namely,  (see  1,2, 
3,  4,  5,  and  6,  Restrictive  Rules,  in  Discipline,  without 
change  as  now.) 

1"  76.  Provided,  nevertheless,  that,  upon  the  concurrent 
recommendation  of  tliree  fourths  of  all  the  members  of 
the  several  Annual  Conferences  succeeding  who  shall 
be  present  and  vote  on  such  recommendation,  a  majority 
of  two  thirds  of  each  house  comprising  the  General 
Conference  succeeding  shall  suffice  to  alter  any  of  the 
above  provisions  excepting  the  first  restriction.  And 
also  whenever  such  alteration  or  alterations  shall  have 
been  recommended  by  two  thirds  of  each  house  of  which 
the  General  Conference  is  composed,  so  soon  as  three 
fourths  of  the  members  of  all  the  Annual  Conferences 
shall  have  concurred  as  aforesaid,  such  alteration  or  al- 
terations shall  take  efifect. 


Two  Houses — Date  of  Origin. 


313 


CHAPTER  XXn. 

TWO  HOUSES— DATE  OF  ORIGIN. 


Great  Britain,  before  the  tirae  of 

Edward  III. 
United  States  of  America. .  1787 


Norway   1814 

Bavaria   1818 

Wiircemberg   1819 

Hesse   1820 

Brazil   1824 

Bolivia   1826 

Belgium   1831 

Saxony   1831 

Uruguay   1831 

Chili   1833 

Hong  Kong   1843 

Equndor   1843 

Baden   1848 

Italy   1848 

Netherlands   1848 

Liberia   1848 

Bremen   1849 

Denmark   1849 

Liibectk-   1851 

Saxe-Coburg   1852 

Portugal   1852 

Argentine  Republic   1853 

Victoria   1854 

Prussia   1854 

New  South  Wales   1855 

Servia   1856 


South  Australia   1850 

Mexico   1857 

Nicaragua   1858 

Queensland   1859 

Guatemala   1859 

Hamburg   1860 

New  Zealand   1862 

Colombia   1863 

Greece   1864 

San  Salvador   1864 

Venezuela   1864 

San  Domingo   1865 

Honduras   1865 

Sweden   1866 

Roumauia   1866 

Egypt   1867 

Hungary   1867 

Austria   1867 

Hayti   1867 

Canada    1867 

Peru   1867 

Natal   1870 

Paraguay   1870 

Germany   1871 

Tasmania   1871 

Cape  of  Good  Hope   1872 

Switzeriaud   1874 

France   1875 

Spain   1876 


THE  END. 


